q_id stringlengths 5 6 | title stringlengths 10 300 | selftext stringlengths 0 10.9k | document stringclasses 1
value | subreddit stringclasses 1
value | answers dict | title_urls dict | selftext_urls dict | answers_urls dict | title_body stringlengths 17 10.9k | embeddings list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
15ck03 | I shocked myself unplugging a power cord from a power strip that was plugged into the wall. All that hapend was my shoulder muscles flexed. Why didn't more happen? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c7l8pds"
],
"text": [
"Well without knowing more about what you inadvertently plugged yourself into, you were probably just lucky and had good reactions. Because of the nature of AC electricity, it is possible to let go of a dangerous connection, as your brain gets a chance to communicate with your muscles. If it were a DC connection however, your shoulder muscles would have continued flexing and you wouldn't have been able to let go at all."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | I shocked myself unplugging a power cord from a power strip that was plugged into the wall. All that hapend was my shoulder muscles flexed. Why didn't more happen?
| [
0.1744329184293747,
-0.9392162561416626,
0.2400844693183899,
-0.5260838270187378,
-0.7427292466163635,
-0.5284676551818848,
0.06665710359811783,
-0.44137078523635864,
-0.05157146602869034,
0.316476970911026,
0.3999507427215576,
0.5120373964309692,
0.03710903599858284,
-0.09227082133293152,... | ||
zhbqy | How long would it take for a molecule of hemoglobin to move from your heart to your foot if there was no circulation and movement was only by diffusion? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c64n9hx"
],
"text": [
"A very long time. Diffusion of individual molecules is only useful over very short distances, like a plasma membrane, like 10 nm. Also depends on temperature. I'd assume we're talking about body temperature here, but there's no circulation, so this body is dead."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | How long would it take for a molecule of hemoglobin to move from your heart to your foot if there was no circulation and movement was only by diffusion?
| [
0.01907634362578392,
-0.5710111856460571,
0.7121641039848328,
-0.14847500622272491,
-0.11794787645339966,
-0.5062576532363892,
0.7083569765090942,
-0.808324933052063,
0.2855042517185211,
-0.3065246045589447,
1.1356382369995117,
0.08750289678573608,
-0.8537269830703735,
0.23828476667404175,... | ||
1q5448 | Built a capacitor. Have a question. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cd9bmti"
],
"text": [
"It's really hard to tell what's going on because from the video I can't tell what's connected to what. Could you post a circuit diagram?"
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Built a capacitor. Have a question.
| [
-0.3698476254940033,
-0.3422008752822876,
-0.0888075903058052,
-0.869096040725708,
-0.25963619351387024,
-0.7926087379455566,
0.5312537550926208,
0.570788562297821,
0.25411108136177063,
-0.3777349889278412,
0.6178480386734009,
0.27002957463264465,
0.1854151487350464,
-0.3826029598712921,
... | ||
1lvxsh | What is a stitch? | When people run they sometimes get a stitch, what is a stitch and what causes it? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cc3e1b9"
],
"text": [
"A stitch in the side is usually a muscle spasm of the intercostal muscles. Think of it like a muscle cramp, but between two ribs. They are usually brought on by muscle fatigue, commonly from fast shallow breathing such as during heavy cardio activities. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask!"
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | What is a stitch?
When people run they sometimes get a stitch, what is a stitch and what causes it? | [
-0.6165308356285095,
-0.35905221104621887,
0.6997233629226685,
0.18201641738414764,
-0.6411020159721375,
-0.20704561471939087,
0.42782676219940186,
-0.3499487042427063,
0.2059495896100998,
-0.4874635934829712,
0.8829584717750549,
-0.028718652203679085,
-0.3293258547782898,
0.03750593960285... | |
1cbte5 | In statistics, can you increase the skewness of a distribution without increasing the kurtosis? | A statistical distribution is usually a function with a few parameters. For instance, the parameters of the normal distribution are mean and variance, and I can adjust those two parameters totally independently. Are there any distributions where skewness and kurtosis are parameters?
More generally, if I have a distribution (a probability density function), is there some procedure I can follow to change the skewness without changing the kurtosis? As an example, I can change the mean of any distribution by replacing every instance of x with (x+1). I can change the variance of any distribution by replacing every x with (2*x).
Thank you. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c9f9dvt"
],
"text": [
"A bit out of my area of expertise, but have you looked at [sinh-arcsinh distributions](_URL_0_)?"
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://biomet.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/4/761.abstract"
]
} | In statistics, can you increase the skewness of a distribution without increasing the kurtosis?
A statistical distribution is usually a function with a few parameters. For instance, the parameters of the normal distribution are mean and variance, and I can adjust those two parameters totally independently. Are there any distributions where skewness and kurtosis are parameters? More generally, if I have a distribution (a probability density function), is there some procedure I can follow to change the skewness without changing the kurtosis? As an example, I can change the mean of any distribution by replacing every instance of x with (x+1). I can change the variance of any distribution by replacing every x with (2*x). Thank you. | [
-0.5040444731712341,
-0.5408453345298767,
0.2695118188858032,
0.819935142993927,
-0.7163015007972717,
-0.4354396462440491,
0.4549872875213623,
-1.1784731149673462,
0.40694040060043335,
0.007608208805322647,
0.5722768306732178,
1.0146849155426025,
-1.1865161657333374,
-0.5966318845748901,
... | |
m9rle | When i catch a drop of rain on my tongue, is it safe to assume that that water has been anywhere, or even everywhere in the world? | I could be completely wrong here (which is why I'm asking), but my understanding of the water cycle is that all the water in the world has basically been here for hundreds/thousands/millions of years, and it all goes round the same cycle of evaporating up into clouds and then precipitating back down over and over again. So if that is the case, does that mean that when i catch a drop of rain on my tongue, that drop of rain could've at some point been part of the pacific ocean, or the snow on the peak of mount everest, or any other place in the world? I think it would be pretty cool to be able to think that.
TL;DR Where has rain water been? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c2z7rm5",
"c2z7rgd"
],
"text": [
"All the matter that makes up our planet, including the atoms comprising water, were formed by nuclear fusion in the center of now-extinct stars. Earth was formed about 4 billion years ago, so that means that every atom on the planet, though unimaginably older than 4Gy itself, has been circulating in some way for 4 billion years. \n\nNot every water molecule has always been a water molecule, though. Lots of biotic and abiotic processes, like lightning, sunlight and metabolic processes (just for example) can split and/or form water. Thus, the atoms within any specific water molecule could have been in that arrangement since Earth's formation, or for a few hours. Because of the sheer volumes of water existing on earth, however, the rate of turnover is extremely slow -- that is, most water is staying water, because the processes that mediate hydrolysis or water formation act very slowly on a human timescale. \n\nSo, your raindrop could be composed of water molecules that have been all over the world (in polar icecaps, in dinosaur pee, you name it) on their 4 billion year old journey to your tongue. Even better, just think about how every oxygen atom in the raindrop was formed in the center of a long-extinct star somewhere else in the universe and has now arrived on the tip of your tongue, your tongue made also of atoms formed in the center of also-extinct stars light-years away. \n\nAs Carl Sagan said, we are \"star-stuff.\"",
"Im no specialist but considering earth is generally a closed system, with little water escaping into space or being added from space, ~4.5 billion years being a long time for water to run amok around earth, and with a drop of water made of thousands/millions/billions(?) of molecules then yes some of those molecules have been just about everywhere that they could have on earth"
],
"score": [
6,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | When i catch a drop of rain on my tongue, is it safe to assume that that water has been anywhere, or even everywhere in the world?
I could be completely wrong here (which is why I'm asking), but my understanding of the water cycle is that all the water in the world has basically been here for hundreds/thousands/millions of years, and it all goes round the same cycle of evaporating up into clouds and then precipitating back down over and over again. So if that is the case, does that mean that when i catch a drop of rain on my tongue, that drop of rain could've at some point been part of the pacific ocean, or the snow on the peak of mount everest, or any other place in the world? I think it would be pretty cool to be able to think that. TL;DR Where has rain water been? | [
0.03832878917455673,
-0.5555461049079895,
1.176306128501892,
-0.34849438071250916,
-0.5623829960823059,
-0.040163762867450714,
-0.021333005279302597,
-0.36466851830482483,
0.7248901724815369,
0.42878323793411255,
0.9465458989143372,
0.360612690448761,
-0.6671592593193054,
1.208701252937317... | |
mqi5b | When playing sports do our brains calculate the angles and power needed for a pass, shot etc., or is it "muscle memory"? | This thought crossed my mind when playing football today. I'm just interested to find out if a quaterback unconsciously calculates the correct velocity and loft needed for a perfect pass. Or do we just "wing it" with so-called "muscle memory"?
Sorry if this is unclear, I can't think of a great way to word the question, but I think I got my point across.
Thanks | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c333llr"
],
"text": [
"From the physiology classes I've taken that have mentioned this, it's understood that sports performance is pretty much muscle memory. As we practice an action (any action, could be throwing a football or typing on a keyboard or walking), our brain remembers what's effective and what isn't effective. You can even learn how to do something completely wrong or ineffectively, but your brain learns how to perform an action a specific way and relies on this memory to reproduce this action in the future. \n\nYou'll have to forgive me, I don't have handy any specific sources I can point you to."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | When playing sports do our brains calculate the angles and power needed for a pass, shot etc., or is it "muscle memory"?
This thought crossed my mind when playing football today. I'm just interested to find out if a quaterback unconsciously calculates the correct velocity and loft needed for a perfect pass. Or do we just "wing it" with so-called "muscle memory"? Sorry if this is unclear, I can't think of a great way to word the question, but I think I got my point across. Thanks | [
0.3624897301197052,
-0.5098297595977783,
0.12427133321762085,
0.0667785108089447,
-0.6501289010047913,
-0.028901774436235428,
-0.2827204167842865,
-0.8105373382568359,
1.597079873085022,
0.25637564063072205,
0.5458545684814453,
0.5534974336624146,
-0.510337769985199,
-0.13260500133037567,
... | |
zo66p | Is the 'Tongue Map' actually a real thing? | My biology teacher insists the you tastes different tastes on different parts of the tongue, but I beg to differ. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c66ac97"
],
"text": [
"You are correct, the \"tongue map\" concept isn't true and generally isn't taught any longer. Your biology teacher should get with the program!"
],
"score": [
7
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Is the 'Tongue Map' actually a real thing?
My biology teacher insists the you tastes different tastes on different parts of the tongue, but I beg to differ. | [
-0.431162565946579,
-0.143367201089859,
0.4757325351238251,
0.4852045476436615,
-0.706785261631012,
-0.0849180743098259,
0.31080031394958496,
-0.18140585720539093,
2.1031575202941895,
0.5810337662696838,
0.6194474101066589,
0.4702657461166382,
-0.4746538996696472,
0.6843621134757996,
-0.... | |
1i2ohf | The "tongue map". I've heard there really is no such thing, but can someone go into detail for me? | I have a friend who's in college, and he says that it *is* true because of a "test" they did in class where they put something on one side of the tongue, but couldn't taste it when they put it in a different spot? (I can't recall what this "something" was.)
Sorry that's really vague, but anyone have a clue what he's talking about? Is the tongue map a real thing? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cb0dmgr",
"cb0dpnm"
],
"text": [
"No, it is just a silly misconception.\n\n[NYT article on the subject](_URL_0_;). The article links directly to a couple scientific papers if you want to bash your friend over the head with real science.",
"Again, no, just a misconception. [Here's](_URL_1_) the wiki on it. Someone else has also posted an article."
],
"score": [
8,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/health/11real.html?_r=2&",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue_map"
]
} | The "tongue map". I've heard there really is no such thing, but can someone go into detail for me?
I have a friend who's in college, and he says that it *is* true because of a "test" they did in class where they put something on one side of the tongue, but couldn't taste it when they put it in a different spot? (I can't recall what this "something" was.) Sorry that's really vague, but anyone have a clue what he's talking about? Is the tongue map a real thing? | [
-0.5355266332626343,
-0.6357623934745789,
-0.00822102278470993,
0.6611713767051697,
-0.5172685384750366,
-0.5098499655723572,
0.552264392375946,
-0.14406509697437286,
1.4986122846603394,
0.7013942003250122,
0.8571246862411499,
0.2934642434120178,
0.3601468801498413,
0.9224535226821899,
-... | |
1hwb2p | [Biology] Are there any examples, past or present, of life forms where their blood or other vital fluids is exposed to the air? | For the most part, I only ever hear about blood in organs or blood vessels. Internal vital fluids are surely a fitness advantage, as blood contamination is a serious threat. But that doesn't mean it's never happened, and there are all sorts of crazy examples of life in the world.
I'm worried that this question may lose meaning as we look at smaller and smaller life. I'm less interested in defining what is and isn't alive, and more interested in unique biological processes.
So, are there any animals, bugs, bacteria or creatures which have exposed blood (or some blood equivalent) without being wounded? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cb08g3j"
],
"text": [
"Ants don't have lunges and so they absorb air though most of their skin. The pores are big enough for air to get in but not their blood to get out.\nSorry if I don't understand the question."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | [Biology] Are there any examples, past or present, of life forms where their blood or other vital fluids is exposed to the air?
For the most part, I only ever hear about blood in organs or blood vessels. Internal vital fluids are surely a fitness advantage, as blood contamination is a serious threat. But that doesn't mean it's never happened, and there are all sorts of crazy examples of life in the world. I'm worried that this question may lose meaning as we look at smaller and smaller life. I'm less interested in defining what is and isn't alive, and more interested in unique biological processes. So, are there any animals, bugs, bacteria or creatures which have exposed blood (or some blood equivalent) without being wounded? | [
-0.31856924295425415,
-0.3974453806877136,
1.2281593084335327,
-0.22496579587459564,
-0.41158527135849,
-0.5603173971176147,
0.20355167984962463,
-0.9854561686515808,
0.5060480833053589,
0.11470760405063629,
1.1385260820388794,
0.21189948916435242,
-1.1198807954788208,
0.7906018495559692,
... | |
5wjw57 | How to derive the Relativistic Doppler shift in Energy? | In his paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" Einstein presents a derivation of the doppler effect on light energy by first deriving the change in amplitude. After that imagines a plane wave of light, moving in the universe at an angle from the x-axis. He then imagines an imaginary sphere moving with the light in one frame of reference, such that the sphere always encloses the same 'bit' of light. He applies the Lorentz Transformation to the sphere, obtaining an equation for an ellipsoid in the other frame of reference. By multiplying the ratio between volumes by the ratio between amplitudes he gets the ratio between the energy of the light in both frames of reference. The problem is I have no idea how to take the volume of the ellipsoid. Anyone know how to do it or another easier way of finding the energy ratio (without Planck's constant)? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"deaogha"
],
"text": [
"The easiest way is simply to apply the Lorentz transformations to the four-momentum of a photon.\n\nFor any four-vector A^(μ), the Lorentz transformations for a boost in the x-direction say:\n\nA^(0)' = γ(A^(0) - βA^(1)),\n\nA^(1)' = γ(A^(1) - βA^(0)),\n\nA^(2)' = A^(2),\n\nA^(3)' = A^(3).\n\nWith β = v/c, and γ = (1-β^(2))^(-1/2).\n\nJust apply this transformation to the four-momentum vector of a photon. For simplicity, assume the photon is moving in the x-direction, the same direction we're boosting in. p^(μ) = (E/c,p,0,0). The transformation gives:\n\nE' = γ(E - vp),\n\np'c = γ(pc - vE),\n\nand the other components are zero in both frames so they're uninteresting.\n\nFor a massless particle, E = pc. These equations are redundant, and they both just tell you that\n\nE' = γE(1 - β) = sqrt[(1 - β)/(1 + β)]E.\n\nThis equation may look familiar.\n\nThis is a specific case of the relativistic Doppler effect for light."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | How to derive the Relativistic Doppler shift in Energy?
In his paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" Einstein presents a derivation of the doppler effect on light energy by first deriving the change in amplitude. After that imagines a plane wave of light, moving in the universe at an angle from the x-axis. He then imagines an imaginary sphere moving with the light in one frame of reference, such that the sphere always encloses the same 'bit' of light. He applies the Lorentz Transformation to the sphere, obtaining an equation for an ellipsoid in the other frame of reference. By multiplying the ratio between volumes by the ratio between amplitudes he gets the ratio between the energy of the light in both frames of reference. The problem is I have no idea how to take the volume of the ellipsoid. Anyone know how to do it or another easier way of finding the energy ratio (without Planck's constant)? | [
-0.6276645660400391,
-0.028451833873987198,
0.9258010387420654,
-0.36739563941955566,
-0.6284621357917786,
-0.3697531819343567,
0.07532043009996414,
0.1202889084815979,
1.2313575744628906,
-1.1232924461364746,
0.7665563821792603,
0.5138174891471863,
-0.786928117275238,
0.2693447470664978,
... | |
36yp3l | What's the cause of the teal color in this supercell? Image in post | Here's the image:
_URL_0_
What's causing the blue-ish color in cloud?
Edit: Here's the original post where I found the image.
_URL_1_
I know the basics of Rayleigh, Mie, etc. scattering , but other than that I really don't feel satisfied with the explanation I've come up with myself. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cribbw1"
],
"text": [
"It's a great question and as far as I know no one has produced a conclusive answer to why clouds can turn more green in colour. Theories include the presence of large hailstones, [the right size of water droplets and cloud thickness](_URL_0_), [reflection of green vegetation](_URL_1_) and the storm cloud providing a dark backdrop against which green light being scattered by particles and molecules in the intervening air can be seen ([so called Fraser's theory](_URL_2_)). Some of the theories are analysed in detail in [this thesis](_URL_3_).\n\nI think we can rule out the theory reflected vegetation colour in this case, but the other theories are still possible."
],
"score": [
15
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7772/17761863929_bb8504a599_k.jpg",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/36w5nd/supercell_in_weinert_texas_the_teal_color_is_the/"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.theguardian.com/news/2013/sep/29/weatherwatch-green-clouds-tornadoes-hail",
"http://optics.kulgun.net/GreenClouds/green_clouds.shtml",
"http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450-39.10.1754",
"https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/5519/9806312.PDF?sequence=1"
]
} | What's the cause of the teal color in this supercell? Image in post
Here's the image: _URL_0_ What's causing the blue-ish color in cloud? Edit: Here's the original post where I found the image. _URL_1_ I know the basics of Rayleigh, Mie, etc. scattering , but other than that I really don't feel satisfied with the explanation I've come up with myself. | [
-0.7093479037284851,
-0.34433865547180176,
0.43595483899116516,
0.2187999188899994,
-1.0246385335922241,
-0.24716278910636902,
0.38562604784965515,
0.0814431831240654,
0.7002378106117249,
0.3981979489326477,
0.5700986981391907,
0.47071802616119385,
-0.7248553037643433,
0.5409282445907593,
... | |
p76js | Is there really any difference between the impact of 1 set of 36 reps of bicep curls vs. 3 sets of 12 reps of bicep curls? | Assuming all else is equal. If so, why?
I've always felt like this stuff is shady at best, and yet it permeates gyms, health and fitness courses, and even doctors recommendations. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c3n20vm"
],
"text": [
"The idea is that you're curling with a weight where 12 reps is pushing your muscles to the limit so that you can't do another 12 without rest. If you are able to do 36 reps all at once it means the weight you are lifting is not enough resistance to build muscle strength effectively."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Is there really any difference between the impact of 1 set of 36 reps of bicep curls vs. 3 sets of 12 reps of bicep curls?
Assuming all else is equal. If so, why? I've always felt like this stuff is shady at best, and yet it permeates gyms, health and fitness courses, and even doctors recommendations. | [
0.06733938306570053,
-0.8293460011482239,
1.330338478088379,
0.06835918128490448,
-1.1737033128738403,
-0.13460218906402588,
0.00869029387831688,
-0.9181211590766907,
0.4886513352394104,
0.4641834795475006,
0.882808268070221,
-0.2231616973876953,
-0.9618264436721802,
0.2864581346511841,
... | |
a3oocy | How do ruminants send food to the rumen and chewed cud to the omasum? | From what I understand, ruminants (e.g. cows) eat their food where it's first broken down in the first two chambers of their stomach creating cud. Then they regurgitate the cud and chew it to break it down further before swallowing again where digestion is then completed by the last two stomach chambers and intestines.
When swallowing food or cud, what is the mechanism that "selects" where it ends up? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"eb9hz2d"
],
"text": [
"To put it simply, after they chew their cud, the particle size of the food bits are now small enough to pass into the omasum. Sometimes they have to regurgitate and chew pieces several times before they're actually small enough to pass into the omasum!"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | How do ruminants send food to the rumen and chewed cud to the omasum?
From what I understand, ruminants (e.g. cows) eat their food where it's first broken down in the first two chambers of their stomach creating cud. Then they regurgitate the cud and chew it to break it down further before swallowing again where digestion is then completed by the last two stomach chambers and intestines. When swallowing food or cud, what is the mechanism that "selects" where it ends up? | [
0.5017985105514526,
0.06708765029907227,
0.23527564108371735,
-0.12417740374803543,
-0.5486963391304016,
-0.23064085841178894,
-0.01855129562318325,
-0.26343977451324463,
1.33943510055542,
0.005166432820260525,
0.5517876148223877,
1.4352866411209106,
-0.44009286165237427,
0.683630824089050... | |
2k5cgm | Biologists: Do we secrete butyric acid from our pores during emotional stress? | I came across this article (_URL_0_) when looking for information about training my dog. A bit suspicious, I looked around for more information about secreting butyric acid, but not much came up in my searches other than the same article. Is any of it true? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"clinpoo"
],
"text": [
"So I do not know much about dogs, but they do have a powerful sense of smell, for example they might be able to [smell cancer](_URL_7_) and the fact that they smell stronger than us is probably true though [we shouldn't sell ourselves short.](_URL_5_) \n\nWhen we sweat we do secrete a [variety of acids](_URL_3_) including derivatives butyric acid. It is one of the main components of the smell profile we consider body odor, and is used as such in many [experiments.](_URL_1_) So the real crux of the question remains, does our emotional state affect the smell of our odor. I think not and there doesn't seem to be any science to back up the concept that their is. Their is evidence that our odor is changed by [diet](_URL_2_), [age](_URL_4_), as well as [genetics](_URL_0_) but as of yet [nothing](_URL_6_) on fear/anger or other emotions.\n\nEdit: Formatting"
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.woofersgrooming.com/how-to-fail-at-dog-training/"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v130/n2/abs/jid2009396a.html",
"http://www.jstor.org/stable/1130280",
"http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/8/747.short",
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2133.1951.tb13728.x/pdf",
"http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ce981605-00ea-4778-b224-3c7c9fc9752a%40sessionmgr113&vid=0&hid=107",
"http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0020146#s10",
"http://www.popsci.com/article/science/ask-anything-can-humans-smell-fear",
"http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2006.6408"
]
} | Biologists: Do we secrete butyric acid from our pores during emotional stress?
I came across this article (_URL_0_) when looking for information about training my dog. A bit suspicious, I looked around for more information about secreting butyric acid, but not much came up in my searches other than the same article. Is any of it true? | [
-0.2595594525337219,
-0.4446558654308319,
0.16543520987033844,
-0.06082812696695328,
-0.47643792629241943,
-0.41059353947639465,
0.2295747995376587,
-0.8193978071212769,
0.9700067639350891,
0.48348310589790344,
0.6245348453521729,
0.23098446428775787,
-0.4098096787929535,
0.808082282543182... | |
8t4dek | What is your average rock made of? | I was asked this question recently and was surprised by how hard it stumped me. Rock.. Material... Was about the best I could get. Let's say a rock from Yellowstone, as an example, because I imagine it varies based on area. a fairly grey and non crystalline river rock. What would that be made out of, elementally? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"e169se1",
"e16b09n",
"e168no2"
],
"text": [
"Most rocks on Earth are made of silicate minerals, carbonate minerals, or some of both.\n\nSilicates are a big group of minerals with lots of variety, but on an atomic level they all have SiO4 tetrahedra, with a silicon atom surrounded by four oxygen atoms. An oxygen atom can be shared between two adjacent tetrahedra allowing them to create rings, chains, sheets, or a solid framework, giving rise to the major classes of silicate minerals. The amount of other elements present, such as aluminium and iron, creates the variety within those classes.\n\nRocks such as granite, basalt, sandstone, and slate are all composed of silicate minerals. The different mixture of minerals and the size and nature of the grains is what makes the rocks different.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nCarbonates have less variety, at least in terms of what minerals are common. By far the most common is calcium carbonate, CaCO3 , which can take a few different crystal structures. Limestone and marble are both composed mainly of calcium carbonate.",
"Rocks are (for the most part) made from minerals. At the atomic scale, minerals are solids with a chemically regular crystalline structure. The vast majority of rocks are based around silicate minerals.The [silicon-oxygen tetrahedron](_URL_1_) forms the basic building block of silicate minerals, though there are other common ones which aren't silica based. Limestones for example are pretty much all calcium carbonate CaCo₃, with varying degrees of impurities. \n\n\nThe most common elements making up the minerals in the Earth's crust (in order) are silicon, oxygen, aluminium, iron, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium and titanium. These are the so called major elements when doing geochemical analyses (though the context is important. Most of the above are trace elements when looking at limestone say). \n\n\nThe mineralogy of the mantle is exclusively silicate based, with more magnesium and iron rich minerals dominating. Thus the mantle is said to be more mafic (Mg-Fe rich) than the crust. This term also says something about the silica content - mafic rocks are less than 45% SiO₂ by wt%.",
"Yellowstone is a terrible example of a non crystalline rock source. However it is fairly typical of continental crust. It's mostly silicic composition, which means lots of quartz, amphibole and potassium feldspar. Basically its about 60 - 70 % SiO2"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicate_minerals#Main_groups",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon–oxygen_tetrahedron"
]
} | What is your average rock made of?
I was asked this question recently and was surprised by how hard it stumped me. Rock.. Material... Was about the best I could get. Let's say a rock from Yellowstone, as an example, because I imagine it varies based on area. a fairly grey and non crystalline river rock. What would that be made out of, elementally? | [
0.19010818004608154,
-0.547873318195343,
0.05641288310289383,
0.029380928725004196,
-0.4517258107662201,
-0.2891266942024231,
-0.04887433350086212,
-0.7978953123092651,
1.4820325374603271,
0.8712865710258484,
1.143190622329712,
0.5864750146865845,
-0.28772222995758057,
0.760111927986145,
... | |
136ksl | Did the "green monkey experiment" ever actually happen? | I've heard, for many years, of a possibly-apocryphal experiment in which a bunch of scientists supposedly captured a monkey (usually described as high-ranking in its group), dyed or painted it green, and put it back into the group, whereupon the other monkeys either shunned it or killed it despite its apparent unawareness of its new colour scheme. My google-fu is usually fairly serviceable, but I can't find any citation or evidence that any such experiment was ever actually conducted (other than a handful of people describing it as some variation on "possibly mythical"). Just because it's not on the internet doesn't mean it didn't happen, though. Can anyone provide a citation, some evidence that it really occurred, or a debunking of the whole thing? Thanks. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c71ck0o"
],
"text": [
"I had always heard about this experiment in the form of painting pigeons orange. I then found [this](_URL_0_).\n\nI'm guessing that both the orange pigeon and green monkey are experiments in human gullibility."
],
"score": [
15
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.thecreatorsproject.com/blog/rainbow-dyed-pigeons-become-flying-works-of-art"
]
} | Did the "green monkey experiment" ever actually happen?
I've heard, for many years, of a possibly-apocryphal experiment in which a bunch of scientists supposedly captured a monkey (usually described as high-ranking in its group), dyed or painted it green, and put it back into the group, whereupon the other monkeys either shunned it or killed it despite its apparent unawareness of its new colour scheme. My google-fu is usually fairly serviceable, but I can't find any citation or evidence that any such experiment was ever actually conducted (other than a handful of people describing it as some variation on "possibly mythical"). Just because it's not on the internet doesn't mean it didn't happen, though. Can anyone provide a citation, some evidence that it really occurred, or a debunking of the whole thing? Thanks. | [
-0.3970372974872589,
-0.4496682286262512,
0.5882405042648315,
-0.18790729343891144,
-0.5004254579544067,
0.014803066849708557,
-0.05795057490468025,
-0.6006577610969543,
0.5474458932876587,
0.7597485780715942,
0.6332435607910156,
0.3811393082141876,
-0.5170789957046509,
0.721139132976532,
... | |
xlzre | Which branch of science is the most "undiscovered"? | I was curious about which branch has the most undiscovered, or unknown elements to it. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c5nilas",
"c5nikwc",
"c5nkatx"
],
"text": [
"My guess would be neuroscience, there's still an incredible amount of ground to cover relating to how that 3 pound thing of goo in our skulls actually works.",
"There's known unknowns, and unknown unknowns....\n\nThis question is basically impossible to answer. We're constantly finding out new stuf in all the sciences, and when we find out new things, it ususally raises more questions than it answers. We're not going to run out of things to study for some time.\n\nLook at it this way - 500 years after Newton first got going on gravity (a single area of physics research, that most people probably think we understand) we're STILL [not sure how it works](_URL_0_).",
"There are probably entire branches of science that don't exist yet, and which we don't have a name for as they have yet to even be imagined."
],
"score": [
7,
5,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Gravity_and_quantum_mechanics"
]
} | Which branch of science is the most "undiscovered"?
I was curious about which branch has the most undiscovered, or unknown elements to it. | [
-0.9322855472564697,
-0.4445861279964447,
0.8991403579711914,
0.33688676357269287,
-0.4130975008010864,
-0.5845226645469666,
0.43748220801353455,
-0.7984145879745483,
0.31382906436920166,
0.45082876086235046,
1.0119366645812988,
0.018015889450907707,
-0.6411890387535095,
0.5095725059509277... | |
she03 | What would be the repercussions of an extraterrestrial mining operation? | This is in response to reports that a mystery company backed by James Cameron and Google wants to start an asteroid mining operation. What are the repercussions of bringing a potentially large amount of mass from somewhere else to Earth? As of now, most everything on Earth comes from Earth in one way or another. Yes, I understand that meteorites land on Earth everyday bringing foreign mass, but this is not nearly to the degree that an asteroid mining operation would bring. Thoughts? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c4e1r73"
],
"text": [
"Crashing the moon into the earth would only raise our planets mass by 1.2%. We can't move enough."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | What would be the repercussions of an extraterrestrial mining operation?
This is in response to reports that a mystery company backed by James Cameron and Google wants to start an asteroid mining operation. What are the repercussions of bringing a potentially large amount of mass from somewhere else to Earth? As of now, most everything on Earth comes from Earth in one way or another. Yes, I understand that meteorites land on Earth everyday bringing foreign mass, but this is not nearly to the degree that an asteroid mining operation would bring. Thoughts? | [
-0.14346645772457123,
-0.11910964548587799,
0.2456493377685547,
-0.6366026997566223,
-0.49745532870292664,
-0.8227273225784302,
-0.19485144317150116,
-0.2211715579032898,
0.428899884223938,
0.3434745669364929,
0.517553985118866,
0.351494699716568,
-0.9561498761177063,
0.7890100479125977,
... | |
mtj1c | Why do similarly labelled decongestants have such widely varied effectiveness? | i.e. Zyrtec vs Allegra vs Claritin. Zyrtec does amazing things for when I get stopped-up during allergy season, Claritin does nothing at all, and Allegra doesn't do as much as Zyrtec.
For my mother, Zyrtec just puts her to sleep, Claritin helps her a little bit, and she swears by Allegra.
These are all decongestants, right? How different can their action mechanisms be such that, anecdotally, their effects are so different? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c33rfp3"
],
"text": [
"The three drugs you list are all in the same class of medications: second-generation H-1 blockers. Their mechanism of action is the same. The idiosyncratic effects you are describing are likely due to the different pharmacokinetics of the three drugs, that is, how they are absorbed and metabolized. Everyone is a little different, and some drugs in one class work differently for different people."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Why do similarly labelled decongestants have such widely varied effectiveness?
i.e. Zyrtec vs Allegra vs Claritin. Zyrtec does amazing things for when I get stopped-up during allergy season, Claritin does nothing at all, and Allegra doesn't do as much as Zyrtec. For my mother, Zyrtec just puts her to sleep, Claritin helps her a little bit, and she swears by Allegra. These are all decongestants, right? How different can their action mechanisms be such that, anecdotally, their effects are so different? | [
-0.16041885316371918,
-0.4561558961868286,
0.8643514513969421,
0.009461048990488052,
-0.8612059950828552,
-0.15535664558410645,
-0.3208768367767334,
-0.3897126615047455,
0.38550716638565063,
0.5426997542381287,
0.6664735078811646,
0.7361374497413635,
-0.3177832067012787,
1.1055632829666138... | |
ykmno | A question regarding language... | Forgive me if this question seems trivial, but I was contemplating about the different varieties of languages and I was wondering how is there such a disparity between most? There are groupings of languages (such as Romance) that have similar structure, syntaxs and even nearly exact words, but how can some seemingly share no common ground at all? Moreover, will all language eventually homogenize to form a global language?
| askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c5wfaf3"
],
"text": [
"Some groups of humans separated at least fifty-thousand years ago. Just look how different some dialects are in the US although they only had about 250 years to form and English is a pretty established language and you don't find new things you need new words for twice a day."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | A question regarding language...
Forgive me if this question seems trivial, but I was contemplating about the different varieties of languages and I was wondering how is there such a disparity between most? There are groupings of languages (such as Romance) that have similar structure, syntaxs and even nearly exact words, but how can some seemingly share no common ground at all? Moreover, will all language eventually homogenize to form a global language? | [
-0.6437527537345886,
-0.4683377742767334,
0.7945358157157898,
0.5816012024879456,
-0.16263596713542938,
0.24964705109596252,
0.7946768999099731,
-0.9177297949790955,
0.5114173889160156,
-0.3312144875526428,
0.7392030954360962,
0.2720341086387634,
-0.809939980506897,
0.23694685101509094,
... | |
v2pfp | Found this painting of some chemical structure while dumpster-diving at my college during move-out week. Can anyone help me identify it? | [Here is the painting](_URL_0_). For some reason, sites that are supposed to ID based on submitted models are coming up dry, even when I check and re-check them.
It's possible that the structure is incorrect, and that's why it was in the trash, but can someone at least give me an idea of what they were aiming for? It looks like a phenethylamine class molecule but I cannot find one that has that double-bonded oxygen.
Thanks. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c50s4t9"
],
"text": [
"My first thought was [MDMA/ecstasy](_URL_0_) but there's an extra ketone. Turns out it's a modified version called [Methylone](_URL_1_)."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://i.imgur.com/qO50q.jpg"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylone"
]
} | Found this painting of some chemical structure while dumpster-diving at my college during move-out week. Can anyone help me identify it?
[Here is the painting](_URL_0_). For some reason, sites that are supposed to ID based on submitted models are coming up dry, even when I check and re-check them. It's possible that the structure is incorrect, and that's why it was in the trash, but can someone at least give me an idea of what they were aiming for? It looks like a phenethylamine class molecule but I cannot find one that has that double-bonded oxygen. Thanks. | [
0.21257199347019196,
-0.5478713512420654,
0.1425526887178421,
-0.12856405973434448,
-0.2509862184524536,
-0.11896470934152603,
0.24432669579982758,
-0.5053980946540833,
0.875619113445282,
0.5410361289978027,
0.5028166770935059,
0.3888966739177704,
-0.48807814717292786,
1.1169722080230713,
... | |
1ijde3 | Is this even possible?: A question about the Atomic Clock | How does the atomic clock work?
If at one point you had say a phone hooked up to atomic time and then lost that ability could you tell how long it had been "drifting" from that point?
If so how long ago was a little more than 9 minutes of drift? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cb53t0m"
],
"text": [
"To make a clock, you need to find something that repeats (or oscillates) at a set rate. Pendulums, for instance, tend to sway back and force at a constant rate, so we used those to make clocks. Springs attached to gears can spin at a very constant rate, and so we use those to make other kinds of clocks.\n\nThese days, the most common type of clock is a quartz clock. In a quartz clock, a quartz crystal vibrates like a tuning fork, and we can extract a steady electrical signal out of it to run our clocks.\n\nAn atomic clock is like all of those things, except it uses an atomic gas to do this instead. If you shine the correct frequency of light onto the gas, it will change in a detectable way. Since light is also an oscillating system, you can use the frequency of this light to keep time.\n\nSo why are atomic clocks so accurate? Well, if you make a bunch of pendulum clocks, each pendulum will be a slightly different length, and all of your clocks will run a little faster or slower than each other. Simialrly, you are not going to be able to make exactly identical springs or quartz crystals. But atoms, however... each atom is exactly the same as any other atom of the same type, so you can make a bunch of clocks and have them run nearly at the same speed."
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Is this even possible?: A question about the Atomic Clock
How does the atomic clock work? If at one point you had say a phone hooked up to atomic time and then lost that ability could you tell how long it had been "drifting" from that point? If so how long ago was a little more than 9 minutes of drift? | [
0.05381852388381958,
-0.8061760067939758,
0.8909739851951599,
-0.34313833713531494,
-0.07631099224090576,
-0.09611953794956207,
0.5267006754875183,
-0.26018571853637695,
0.27565905451774597,
0.43754613399505615,
1.3345530033111572,
-0.21908371150493622,
-0.7268334031105042,
0.6026476621627... | |
xb7xh | What does AskScience think of the TV show "The Doctors"? Their advice seems kinda sketchy to me. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c5kurre",
"c5kvr6p"
],
"text": [
"Can you list any of their sketchy advice?",
"This may be a better question for /r/skeptic, but let me try giving some advice about that show. Now, I don't watch the show so they only show up on my radar when they do something particularly egregious. This cannot be completely comprehensive of the show as I don't have time to scroll through every transcript and find their exact rate of error.\n\nThey have ran segments completely uncritical of a [chiropractor](_URL_1_) (I won't bother going into chiropractic here as there are [plenty of threads](_URL_3_) already on it). If you watch that video you will see at the end of the segment they promote their guests book \"The power of self healing: Unlock your natural healing potential in 21 days\". Now, I have never read that book but it raises many red flags. Also looking at the other books they have available from that university (parker university) includes one titled \"Well adjusted babies\" (regarding a holistic approach to raising children, the word holistic is generally another red flag).\n\nThe fact that they would have someone on who is [promoting spinal sublexations](_URL_4_) is not quite enough to completely dismiss the show.\n\nThey also host a page of [vitamin shot](_URL_0_) recipes. Now, I also found another page on their site that [argues against](_URL_2_) vitamin megadosing (even that article links to sites promoting organic and natural healing).\n\nHere is some criticism of the show by [David Gorski](_URL_5_). If you can't be bothered to read that (also the videos linked in the article are gone), the show had Jay Gordon on. Jay Gordon is a well known anti-vaccination advocate. No science based show should have even given him a platform, the show fell for the false balance trap that so many new shows fall into. There is no scientific controversy surrounding vaccines, and while there are vocal people that disagree they do not carry any evidence and until they have evidence they should not be given equal time. While that may not seem fair that is how science works. Here is a quote from one of the show hosts:\n\n > “I encourage my patients not to blow off vaccines, but I want to do it as safely as I can,” Dr. Jim says, explaining that he starts children at 2 months with the important vaccinations like whooping cough and meningitis, but he only gives one or two at a time. “Some of the more controversial ones, we wait until later,”\n\nWhat this quote tells me is that these guys are actual doctors who do have medical training but they are also making a TV show and they won't take the publicly controversial stance of saying that chiropractic is a minefield of quackery and that vaccines are safe to give (even without spacing them out, and even the \"controversial\" ones). The doctors themselves likely don't make the decisions about guests. The show is not done as a public service, it is done to make a profit. They have people on who want to sell you products to improve your health, which is an area filled with charlatans."
],
"score": [
5,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.thedoctorstv.com/main/show_synopsis/142?section=feature&title=Vitamin%20Shot",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM3E6NTGpOg",
"http://www.thedoctorstv.com/GreenFish/posts/14232-Vitamin-C-and-Zinc",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/search?q=chiropractic&restrict_sr=on",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UU0IM3Gig7UeJpqjEtp9i00A&v=CM3E6NTGpOg&feature=player_detailpage#t=244s",
"http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-fallacy-of-balance-and-fairness-about-unscientific-health-claims-in-the-media-a-case-study/"
]
} | What does AskScience think of the TV show "The Doctors"? Their advice seems kinda sketchy to me.
| [
-0.34845542907714844,
-0.6927111744880676,
0.5613992214202881,
-0.17145532369613647,
-0.7032410502433777,
-0.5078814029693604,
0.24541600048542023,
-0.6630457639694214,
0.8712561130523682,
0.29387375712394714,
1.0764018297195435,
0.3130142390727997,
0.3173567056655884,
0.6755091547966003,
... | ||
lj5ja | What stops me from falling through the floor? | So there is a lot of empty space in between atoms, so what stops the atoms in my foot falling through the atoms in my floor? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c2t4imd",
"c2t88n1"
],
"text": [
"The simplest answer is the repulsion of the electrons in your feet with the repulsion of the electrons in the floor is much greater than the attraction of gravity between you and the Earth.",
"What doubleohchester said. The slightly more complicated version is that there are four fundamental forces in the universe: strong nuclear force, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, and gravitation (in order strongest to weakest). The attraction between the floor atoms/molecules (electromagnetic) is stronger than the gravitational force downwards, as is the connection between all of your foot or shoe atoms/molecules. \n\n[Here](_URL_0_) is the wikipedia article on fundamental forces-- I'll allow you to navigate between them at your leisure."
],
"score": [
7,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction"
]
} | What stops me from falling through the floor?
So there is a lot of empty space in between atoms, so what stops the atoms in my foot falling through the atoms in my floor? | [
-0.20920120179653168,
-0.3148335814476013,
0.2289050668478012,
0.057432983070611954,
-0.14097250998020172,
-0.42961907386779785,
-0.11817865818738937,
-0.03386179730296135,
-0.313967227935791,
0.06394187361001968,
0.4723599851131439,
0.8738618493080139,
-0.9431723356246948,
0.0637196004390... | |
lyody | What is a good intuitive description of wavenumber (cm^-1) | I've done more IR spectra interpretation than I care to think about in my life, and I understand in some degree of detail how FTIR works (and other fourier transformed spectroscopy such as NMR), but I've never really been able to wrap my head around what cm^-1 intuitively means when I'm looking at a peak (say of a strong carbonyl peak at 1700). | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c2wnset",
"c2wnmgx"
],
"text": [
"I hope this helps; the wavenumber is the number of time the wavelength is contained in the length unit. A carbonyl peak at 1700 cm-1 means that the wavelength absorbed \"fits\" 1700 times in one centimeter (wavelength = 5882 nm).",
"This is my specialty, so I think I can offer a couple of possible options for you (and I can propose more, if you don't care for these.) Before I list these, just keep in mind that the wavenumber is very useful as a unit because it happens to have \"nice\" values for a lot of the relevant parts of the spectrum (while Hz and eV wind up being too large or too small for vibrational spectroscopy). Still, it's just an arbitrary unit like any other way of measuring frequency. So here are a few options:\n\n- A wavenumber is a measure of frequency, which is directly proportional to energy (E=hv). Just think of it as another unit of energy that happens to have a particularly stupid name. (\"Joules\" is pretty silly, too.)\n\n- We often think of frequency in 1/s (aka Hz), because we want to know how many times a vibration (or rotation or whatever) can cycle in a second, but we could also think of how long is required for the oscillation to complete a cycle, and that would have the same information in it. Wavelength contains the same information about cycle time in physical space; if you're comfortable with the concept of reciprocal space from x-ray crystallography or solid state physics, you could think of wavenumbers as a bit like \"wavelength in reciprocal space.\" That's not necessarily the most educational thing, but if it helps you to feel more comfortable with the units, then more power to you."
],
"score": [
9,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | What is a good intuitive description of wavenumber (cm^-1)
I've done more IR spectra interpretation than I care to think about in my life, and I understand in some degree of detail how FTIR works (and other fourier transformed spectroscopy such as NMR), but I've never really been able to wrap my head around what cm^-1 intuitively means when I'm looking at a peak (say of a strong carbonyl peak at 1700). | [
-0.3402400314807892,
-0.4742882549762726,
0.7745716571807861,
0.22550378739833832,
-0.49361515045166016,
-0.30873435735702515,
-0.4063531160354614,
-0.7705984711647034,
0.7375813722610474,
0.4730648398399353,
1.3789554834365845,
0.1453922837972641,
0.03356066718697548,
0.5616023540496826,
... | |
110kxk | What's the difference between an invertebrate brain structure compared to a mammalian brain structure. | Could invertebrates ever evolve to have the same intelligence as humans?
edit: English | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c6i8n11",
"c6i8q4u"
],
"text": [
"> Could invertebrates ever evolve to have the same intelligence as humans?\n\nIt's happened once before.",
"The brain has slowly evolved over billions of years and it evolved from the inside out. The base of the brain is at the spinal-cord and the brain closest to that point deals with almost all of our sensory perception (except vision) and motor control. Further out you have the instinctive mind and our reflexes, further out is the brain that deals with memory. The newest part of the brain is at the very front (prefrontal cortex) and it deals with analytical thinking and most of the advanced functions that we consider human.\n\nMost invertebrates have a very under-developed prefrontal cortex or none at all, while their instinctive brains are more efficient. Their brains have some resemblance to the brains of our ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago, but they have also evolved in their own unique ways. The most advanced invertebrate brain probably belongs to the octopus, which is a remarkably intelligent animal, yet it's brain is very different from ours, especially considering that they have sections of brain in their arms!\n\nIt actually would be possible for an invertebrate to evolve a brain similar to ours but it would be very unlikely. Not only is there tons of variety to obtain, but most invertebrates cannot evolve to our size. Not having a spine, and having hard shells restricts the size of most invertebrates, especially the ones that live on land."
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | What's the difference between an invertebrate brain structure compared to a mammalian brain structure.
Could invertebrates ever evolve to have the same intelligence as humans? edit: English | [
-0.5809046030044556,
-0.6116081476211548,
0.8775434494018555,
-0.4553508162498474,
-0.2825617790222168,
0.1383407711982727,
0.2775377929210663,
-0.5588423013687134,
0.5400712490081787,
-0.4958684742450714,
1.2062488794326782,
0.9916645884513855,
-1.5065853595733643,
-0.018992813304066658,
... | |
4o4dwm | How is a basic metabolic panel performed in the lab? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"d49w07b"
],
"text": [
"These tests are all biochemistry based.\n\nYou'll have a blood sample drawn with various additives: clotting activators for most of the analytes as they are tested on serum, but fluoride oxalate for glucose as this is tested on plasma (thus needs an anticoagulant) and it also inhibits further glycolysis.\n\nThe samples will be prepared by centrifuging to yield the various plasma and serum and then loaded onto a big analyser.\n\nSome assays such as for potassium and sodium use ion selective electrodes, whilst the others rely on spectrophotometers - measurements of colour changes of the serum and plasma to determine concentrations of analytes. \n\nFor example, creatinine uses the Jaffe reaction, a reaction based on picric acid causing a yellow colour change and creatinine levels determined based on the colour intensity.\n\nSource: I'm a trainee biomedical scientist in a biochemistry lab"
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | How is a basic metabolic panel performed in the lab?
| [
-0.4962298274040222,
-0.6617796421051025,
0.13961561024188995,
-0.29123654961586,
0.28106915950775146,
-0.8914840221405029,
0.5038648247718811,
-0.03580182418227196,
0.9890947937965393,
-0.2719416916370392,
0.6868142485618591,
0.12647655606269836,
0.08204089105129242,
0.4737183749675751,
... | ||
t584f | I am teaching a unit on evolution in my, primarily fundie, 10th-grade Biology class. Please help! | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c4jn6p4",
"c4jmy67"
],
"text": [
"Here are some good resources:\n\n1) Watch this [NOVA documentary](_URL_0_) on a court case a few years ago where Intelligent Design and Evolution were on trial in a court room. Excellent documentary and thoroughly trounced the Intelligent Design dogma.\n\n2) Explore [this webpage](_URL_4_) for a thorough rundown of the evidence in support of evolution. (Note they grant you permission to use as much of it as you want for educational purposes...just be sure to read the part on how to cite their document if you use it)\n\n3) Know thy enemy. A common method of preparing for a debate is to understand the opposing side's arguments as well as possible so you can be prepared with information to rebut their arguments. [Here is a page](_URL_1_) which lays out a lot of the ideas of those who oppose evolution. You need to read with a critical eye. For instance, right at the beginning that page says, \"...a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.\" In fact most scientists are not Atheists and most scientists believe in evolution. Nor is it even relevant what the religion of a person is who supports evolution. Such statements are meant merely to [poison the well](_URL_2_).\n\nYou have a lot of research ahead of you but should be a great learning experience and could even be fun.\n\nGood luck!\n\nEdit to add:\n\nSince you only have one class period to do your thing a full rundown of evidence for evolution may be a bit too big to do (although it is advisable you know as much as possible about it as possible just in case).\n\nThe big two arguments anti-evolutionists like to throw out are:\n\n1) **Evolution is only a *\"theory\"*.** By this they hope to insinuate that there is doubt about it and other explanations are equally as valid. This is a profound misunderstanding of what a theory is in science. Evolution is *both* a fact *and* a theory. That evolution occurs is beyond doubt. The evidence for it is monumental. The theory part comes in how it actually works. The details of its mechanisms. Similarly we have a *theory* of gravity. Drop a pen on the floor and ask someone in the class to tell you gravity is *only* a theory and doesn't exist. Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity comes in how it actually works...same as evolution. \n\n2) **Irreducible complexity.** This is the notion that some things are too complex to have evolved. They have to appear in one jump or they could not appear thus positing an intelligent designer (god) must be responsible. The classic example they give is if you put the parts of a watch in a box and shake it you will never get an assembled watch (well...technically it is possible but astoundingly unlikely). In biology they point (often) to the eye and say there is no half-step to making an eye...either you have a working eye or you don't so there is no way for evolution to take the intermediate steps on the way to having an eye. It has to evolve in one go or not at all.\n\nThe above is addressed in the NOVA documentary I linked and the problem here is the watch parts have no affinity for each other. In nature certain things want to hang together and others not so much. Here is a [great video](_URL_3_) where a guy ran a program showing that evolution is indeed a blind watchmaker and shows clearly how they are wrong.\n\nOne last thing. Anti-evolutionists often make the mistake of suggesting evolution talks about the origins of life (how life got started in the first place). Evolution says *nothing* whatsoever about that. It merely concerns itself with how life changes over time. Abiogenesis is the study of the origins of life. An entirely different thing.\n\nAlso, if they ask you if you believe we evolved from apes (they may say monkeys) you can answer truthfully \"no\". We did not evolve from apes. Humans and apes have a common ancestor we both evolved from.",
"Are you asking for advice on the scientific content of your lecture or are you giving a theological lecture?"
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html",
"http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0",
"http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"
]
} | I am teaching a unit on evolution in my, primarily fundie, 10th-grade Biology class. Please help!
| [
-0.8851379156112671,
-0.18715094029903412,
0.7524089217185974,
-0.37804341316223145,
-0.089261494576931,
-0.6378412842750549,
0.32795262336730957,
-0.059140440076589584,
1.5836752653121948,
-0.4985221028327942,
0.4111068844795227,
0.4226605296134949,
-0.050023604184389114,
1.28697812557220... | ||
6hcirt | How have past cataclysmic events influenced human genetic mutations? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"diy0jbj"
],
"text": [
"That might depend on how you define cataclysmic events. If you define disease epidemics as cataclysmic events then there is evidence they have shaped our genetic makeup. People who were genetically more resistant to dying from particular diseases survived and passed on their genes. Here's an article on how the Black Death (plague) affected the genetics of Romanian gypsies - _URL_0_."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/02/black-death-left-mark-human-genome"
]
} | How have past cataclysmic events influenced human genetic mutations?
| [
0.3049353361129761,
-0.40164709091186523,
-0.638347864151001,
-1.302558422088623,
0.30197450518608093,
-0.024111825972795486,
1.4050390720367432,
-0.3939133286476135,
0.08634445071220398,
-0.05217573791742325,
1.083540678024292,
0.0795731246471405,
-1.0415661334991455,
1.321669101715088,
... | ||
2wwlmm | How did certain symbiotic relationships (like plovers and crocodiles) come about? | How did the first crocodile to do this know/feel that what the plover was doing was beneficial? Same goes for remoras/sharks and so on. Sorry if this is a basic question, but I just got curious because we learned about this in my ap bio class but they never really explained how it might have occurred in the first place. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"couwbal"
],
"text": [
"Like everything in biology: over time. Crocs don't identify plovers as food, so over generations crocs who showed no agressive behaviour towards plovers got the advantage of less parasites and accumulated in better survival odds for crocs with plovers. That and time."
],
"score": [
8
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | How did certain symbiotic relationships (like plovers and crocodiles) come about?
How did the first crocodile to do this know/feel that what the plover was doing was beneficial? Same goes for remoras/sharks and so on. Sorry if this is a basic question, but I just got curious because we learned about this in my ap bio class but they never really explained how it might have occurred in the first place. | [
0.21526335179805756,
-0.49582406878471375,
0.5566083788871765,
-0.12482243031263351,
-0.8527906537055969,
-0.34444424510002136,
0.38289228081703186,
-0.4003015160560608,
1.0988597869873047,
0.5038435459136963,
1.298678994178772,
0.21999354660511017,
-0.028405744582414627,
1.257390260696411... | |
1h8be3 | Why can you cut some objects, such as a ball of clay, in half and then combine\reshape the halves so that no crease or cut exists, but you wouldn't be able to do this with other objects, such as a slice of bread? What property determines this? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"carunc3"
],
"text": [
"I think clay is technically an emulsion. Small solid particles kept in stiff suspension by interstitial water molecules with a polar attraction to the particles. If I recall, most clays are comprised of metallic silicates which would be hydrophillic so water is quite happy to wet them and hold them together by surface tension.\n\nI don't think ground polyethylene powder and water would be very cohesive because the water wouldn't wet the powder well so no cohesion.\n\nCutting clay isn't really cutting anything. No molecules are sheared/torn. All you've done is overcome the surface tension holding the mush together to cleave the ball and it's quite happy to stick back together.\n\nCutting bread involves tearing of the gluten molecules that comprise the bread. Because the gluten is already set, you can't mash the dry bread back together. Bread dough by comparison is not yet set. Gluten strands seem to be quite happy to be pulled apart and re entangle so you can mash the stuff back together."
],
"score": [
22
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Why can you cut some objects, such as a ball of clay, in half and then combine\reshape the halves so that no crease or cut exists, but you wouldn't be able to do this with other objects, such as a slice of bread? What property determines this?
| [
0.28426170349121094,
0.007940229028463364,
-0.12367862462997437,
0.4857744872570038,
-0.5726306438446045,
0.15415412187576294,
0.6589815616607666,
-0.8656793832778931,
0.8895378112792969,
-0.13170938193798065,
0.41717883944511414,
0.004342630971223116,
-0.7869516015052795,
0.35879084467887... | ||
3qk71v | What is the apex of the seal in this gif? | My coworker and I are fascinated by the pure strength and coordination of the orca in this gif. Exactly how high was the seal thrown?
From what we found on Wikipedia, a fully matured harbor seal can be over 6ft long and weigh over 250 lbs. Is the seal in the gif fully matured? What was the apex of the seal and how much force would be needed to get it there?
_URL_0_ | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cwg1rr6"
],
"text": [
"Assuming it's in real time, and not sped up or slowed down, we can figure out approximately how high the seal went from the amount of time it was in the air. I just timed it and got ~4.2s, which translates to a height of (1/2) \\* a \\* (t/2)^2 = 9.8m/s^2 \\* (4.2s)^2 / 8 = 21.6m, or about 71 feet."
],
"score": [
17
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://imgur.com/gallery/ardT2Pm"
]
} | {
"url": []
} | What is the apex of the seal in this gif?
My coworker and I are fascinated by the pure strength and coordination of the orca in this gif. Exactly how high was the seal thrown? From what we found on Wikipedia, a fully matured harbor seal can be over 6ft long and weigh over 250 lbs. Is the seal in the gif fully matured? What was the apex of the seal and how much force would be needed to get it there? _URL_0_ | [
0.5236397981643677,
-0.5970511436462402,
0.8117802739143372,
-0.15287061035633087,
-0.49243423342704773,
-0.42906883358955383,
-0.9705709218978882,
-0.6580830812454224,
0.5246840715408325,
-0.023795096203684807,
0.9617640376091003,
0.455287367105484,
-0.07124149799346924,
0.711895823478698... | |
11yb9a | The earth as seen from an alien civilization | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c6ql5sx"
],
"text": [
"Regarding the first question, it's certainly the subject of much speculation. We deliberately and unintentionally broadcast lots of information into space, including, among other things, a Beatles song.\n\nIt's certainly possible that, should an alien civilization exist, they could see us. However, there's also a possibility that an alien civilization would have different perceptions than humans. There are lots of implications of this: they might not see what we consider visible light, they could be more sensitive to radio transmissions, etc etc."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | The earth as seen from an alien civilization
| [
-1.330593228340149,
-0.2557791471481323,
-0.6453633308410645,
-1.3255083560943604,
-0.19293026626110077,
-0.3317948579788208,
0.1876581609249115,
0.7577718496322632,
-0.5624574422836304,
0.044369716197252274,
0.8057368993759155,
1.1501182317733765,
-0.7885474562644958,
0.9878464937210083,
... | ||
1zpcbv | What is phosphatidylserine? | I ask this because I was reading the annual report of Peregrine Pharmaceuticals and I am trying to understand the drug that they make. Can someone explain this paragraph from their annual statement LI5.
"Bavituximab is a first-in-class phosphatidylserine (PS)-targeting monoclonal antibody that represents a new approach to treating cancer. PS is a highly immunosuppressive molecule usually located inside the membrane of healthy cells, but "flips" and becomes exposed on the outside of cells that line tumor blood vessels, creating a specific target for anti-cancer treatments. PS-targeting antibodies target and bind to PS and block this immunosuppressive signal, thereby enabling the immune system to recognize and fight the tumor. These data detailing the immune-stimulatory mechanism of action of PS-targeting antibodies, such as the company's lead drug candidate bavituximab, are the subject of a manuscript published in the October 2013 issue of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) peer-reviewed journal, Cancer Immunology Research . Bavituximab is currently being evaluated in several solid tumor indications, including non-small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer and rectal cancer with a trial in advanced melanoma anticipated to initiate in the near future." | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cfvyu2j"
],
"text": [
"First, here's some background.\n\nPS is a pretty standard negatively charged [plasma membrane phospholipid](_URL_3_).\n\nThe interesting thing here is that it's normally all in the inner leaflet. The plasma membrane is a [bilayer](_URL_2_), it has two lipid leaflets which differ in composition. The differences between the leaflets are created and maintained by [flippases/floppases](_URL_0_) which flip specific lipids into specific leaflets.\n\nBecause [flippases/floppases](_URL_5_) are directional (which they can do by using energy) they can enforce specific lipids being in specific leaflets. In this case PS is always on the inner leaflet facing the inside of the cell. In fact, [lots of PS on the outside of the cell](_URL_1_) is characteristic of apoptosis (programmed cell death).\n\nNow, for the paragraph you want explained.\n\nPS on the outside of the cell is an immunosuppresive molecule ([reference1](_URL_6_), [reference2](_URL_4_)), it turns down the adaptive immune system. This is bad for a cancer patient, because a reduced immune response means that the body isn't killing off the cancer cells.\n\nIn order to turn off the immunosuppressive effects of PS on the outside of the cell, this company is marketing an antibody that targets PS. The antibody recognizes PS, and binds to it. That prevents it from binding to and being recognized by the receptors that mediate the immunosuppressive effects. It's a competition, the PS is recognized as immunosuppressive normally, but if it's already bound to the drug, it can't be recognized and thus there's no immunosuppressive effects. That makes the tumor cells more vulnerable because they haven't turned off the host's immune system."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.jbc.org/content/282/2/821.full",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22858544",
"http://www.bio.miami.edu/tom/courses/protected/MCB6/ch10/10-01corrected.jpg",
"http://lipidlibrary.aocs.org/Lipids/ps/index.htm",
"http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/14/6/1603/F1.expansion.html",
"http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v12/n5/fig_tab/ni.2024_F1.html",
"http://www.jimmunol.org/content/174/3/1393.long"
]
} | What is phosphatidylserine?
I ask this because I was reading the annual report of Peregrine Pharmaceuticals and I am trying to understand the drug that they make. Can someone explain this paragraph from their annual statement LI5. "Bavituximab is a first-in-class phosphatidylserine (PS)-targeting monoclonal antibody that represents a new approach to treating cancer. PS is a highly immunosuppressive molecule usually located inside the membrane of healthy cells, but "flips" and becomes exposed on the outside of cells that line tumor blood vessels, creating a specific target for anti-cancer treatments. PS-targeting antibodies target and bind to PS and block this immunosuppressive signal, thereby enabling the immune system to recognize and fight the tumor. These data detailing the immune-stimulatory mechanism of action of PS-targeting antibodies, such as the company's lead drug candidate bavituximab, are the subject of a manuscript published in the October 2013 issue of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) peer-reviewed journal, Cancer Immunology Research . Bavituximab is currently being evaluated in several solid tumor indications, including non-small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer and rectal cancer with a trial in advanced melanoma anticipated to initiate in the near future." | [
-0.599772036075592,
-0.6839205026626587,
1.1603833436965942,
-1.1049219369888306,
-0.6124591827392578,
-0.982711911201477,
0.0868639349937439,
-0.8291594386100769,
1.1756333112716675,
-0.12091416120529175,
0.5469537973403931,
0.30756086111068726,
-0.5875153541564941,
1.1519525051116943,
... | |
1eqtt0 | Not sure if stupid question but... will it be possible to print medicine in the future? | I've seen things printing human tissue and organs. It seems to me like printing medicine would be a bit less complicated... | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"ca2wym0"
],
"text": [
"Basically, to \"print\" in this case means \"to squirt out substances to produce a pattern or structure\". It's not so much about production as about arrangement. You could print medicine by filling some inkjet cartridges full of penicillin and printing it out on a piece of paper. It'd be really easy, but not very helpful. The great thing about printing tissues and organs is taking some available materials like cells and cartiledge, and precisely arranging them to produce tissue."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Not sure if stupid question but... will it be possible to print medicine in the future?
I've seen things printing human tissue and organs. It seems to me like printing medicine would be a bit less complicated... | [
-0.7189602255821228,
-0.5809442400932312,
1.5366638898849487,
-0.596677839756012,
-0.7386448979377747,
-0.6590323448181152,
-0.3187049627304077,
-1.672711730003357,
0.8168243169784546,
-0.5540779829025269,
1.0628225803375244,
0.08549340814352036,
-0.34651657938957214,
0.39339470863342285,
... | |
j6st7 | A consistent and reputable scientific news source? | Hey AskScience,
I'm looking for a news source where I can find reputable and scientifically significant news from a range of topics from astronomy to medicine and everything in between. Most science-based news sites seem to cater to the "popular science" agenda and I find myself questioning the significance of what I'm reading. So any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c29m4q8",
"c29mkt2"
],
"text": [
"Nature and Science both have pretty good news sections.",
"[Sciencedaily](_URL_0_) has been my source for years. I have two RSS feeds loaded on my desktop, one for astronomy, and one for general news such as you described. Check it out."
],
"score": [
8,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.sciencedaily.com/"
]
} | A consistent and reputable scientific news source?
Hey AskScience, I'm looking for a news source where I can find reputable and scientifically significant news from a range of topics from astronomy to medicine and everything in between. Most science-based news sites seem to cater to the "popular science" agenda and I find myself questioning the significance of what I'm reading. So any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! | [
-0.18398180603981018,
-0.2916925549507141,
0.9708179831504822,
0.08598649501800537,
-1.3289064168930054,
-0.9432711601257324,
-0.31220462918281555,
-0.6556954383850098,
0.7528373599052429,
-0.16647617518901825,
0.3539086580276489,
0.33183810114860535,
0.11832179129123688,
1.136722326278686... | |
igxe6 | Are there good hard physical science blogs out there? | I'm currently a grad student in chemistry studying spectroscopy and I'm having a bit of an internet dilemma that's been haunting
me through even undergrad.
I find that, at least in my cursory searches, I can't find any regularly updated hard science blogs. Although it seems modern physics seems to be the most popular in the physical science realm -- and don't get me wrong I do enjoy reading about high energy physics and cosmology -- I find that things are generally lacking.
Do you guys have any blog suggestions? I'm really tired of reading the general boring pop science drivel you'd find on Discover Magazine (I love Phil Plait but I really want something with more substance). I generally prefer the physical sciences but if you know a good med chem/drug discovery blog that might sit on the interface of the natural sciences I'd be ok with that. Any kind of chemistry or physics or even astro would be awesome -- just as long as it's regularly updated and doesn't try to skimp on the hard technical analysis.
Thanks!
| askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c23oej4",
"c23o2v9",
"c23p8wl"
],
"text": [
"I happen to like \"[In The Pipeline](_URL_0_)\". It's written by a PhD organic chemist who works in drug discovery.",
"Try some of the blogs at either _URL_2_ or _URL_2_. I don't think the former has so much in the physical sciences yet, but I could be mistaken.\n\nI tend to read neuro and medical stuff by authors on those sites, though, so I can't really speak too much for the quality of the physical science authors there except speculate that they're probably at least okay.",
"I met a guy at a conference and then googled him and he had a pretty cool blog.\n\n_URL_3_"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://corante.com/pipeline/",
"scienceblogs.com",
"scientopia.org",
"http://metadatta.wordpress.com/"
]
} | Are there good hard physical science blogs out there?
I'm currently a grad student in chemistry studying spectroscopy and I'm having a bit of an internet dilemma that's been haunting me through even undergrad. I find that, at least in my cursory searches, I can't find any regularly updated hard science blogs. Although it seems modern physics seems to be the most popular in the physical science realm -- and don't get me wrong I do enjoy reading about high energy physics and cosmology -- I find that things are generally lacking. Do you guys have any blog suggestions? I'm really tired of reading the general boring pop science drivel you'd find on Discover Magazine (I love Phil Plait but I really want something with more substance). I generally prefer the physical sciences but if you know a good med chem/drug discovery blog that might sit on the interface of the natural sciences I'd be ok with that. Any kind of chemistry or physics or even astro would be awesome -- just as long as it's regularly updated and doesn't try to skimp on the hard technical analysis. Thanks! | [
-0.581244707107544,
-0.5866501331329346,
0.5013463497161865,
-0.15037576854228973,
-0.6117536425590515,
-0.7606855630874634,
-0.5867448449134827,
-0.8808605670928955,
1.1925010681152344,
0.5456021428108215,
0.8245110511779785,
0.2756238281726837,
0.0052503421902656555,
1.039725661277771,
... | |
on5nj | Can someone explain to me why bycicles don't fall on either side? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c3iikif",
"c3iinid"
],
"text": [
"I presume you mean when they' re in motion?",
"[A bicycle can be self-stable without gyroscopic or caster effects](_URL_0_\n),\nScience 15 April 2011: 332(6027), 339-342. [doi:10.1126/science.1201959]\n\nJ.D.G. Kooijman, J.P.Meijaard, Jim M. Papadopoulos, Andy Ruina, A.L. Schwab"
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/topics/bicycle_mechanics/stablebicycle/index.htm"
]
} | Can someone explain to me why bycicles don't fall on either side?
| [
-0.29612264037132263,
-0.13511236011981964,
0.44081372022628784,
0.7955663800239563,
-0.5980725288391113,
-0.2666851282119751,
0.7117074728012085,
-0.566674530506134,
0.19163544476032257,
0.5180014967918396,
0.03823590278625488,
0.44192901253700256,
-0.537389874458313,
-0.6803542971611023,... | ||
18dwyi | Psychologists, sociologists, linguists and others: can you describe 'primes' and 'priming', 'frames' and 'framing', and the similarities and differences between definitions? | I'm totally bamboozled by the number of (mostly unintelligible) definitions between these concepts that superficially seem really similar. Does anyone out there have a good handle on this? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c8e1zob"
],
"text": [
"The word priming has nearly as many scientific definitions as there are scientific disciplines. And can have completely unrelated meanings (see priming in human memory vs priming for a PCR machine).\n\nCould you give us a bit more context for how you interpret these words?"
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Psychologists, sociologists, linguists and others: can you describe 'primes' and 'priming', 'frames' and 'framing', and the similarities and differences between definitions?
I'm totally bamboozled by the number of (mostly unintelligible) definitions between these concepts that superficially seem really similar. Does anyone out there have a good handle on this? | [
-0.22940680384635925,
0.01649113930761814,
0.7336493134498596,
0.7287540435791016,
-0.955254852771759,
0.07660699635744095,
-0.15549229085445404,
-0.9052811861038208,
0.3453056514263153,
-0.4013400077819824,
0.6230022311210632,
0.1019408106803894,
-0.7687476277351379,
0.35081660747528076,
... | |
3xovsv | Why is the reproduction organ so closley located to the wastehandling organs in many species? | Are there any benfits to this? I dont know the anatomy of all spieces but it seems like alot of animals have their reproduction organs always in connection or really close to their wastehandling organs and in my head it seems like a uneccesary risk because the waste could potentialy interfere with the reproduction. So are there any benefits or reason evelotionary for this? And are there species where it's different? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cy6sk7c"
],
"text": [
"If you are a bottom-dwelling elongated organism, like a roundworm or a flatworm (which is where we first see development of true reproductive systems, evolutionarily speaking), then you want your inlet openings to be on the front end of your body and your outlet openings to be on the rear end of your body. (Reproductive openings are outlets because early reproductive systems eject sperm and eggs into the surrounding water.) A few billion years of evolution later, you have legs, brain, and reddit where you can ask these questions."
],
"score": [
20
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Why is the reproduction organ so closley located to the wastehandling organs in many species?
Are there any benfits to this? I dont know the anatomy of all spieces but it seems like alot of animals have their reproduction organs always in connection or really close to their wastehandling organs and in my head it seems like a uneccesary risk because the waste could potentialy interfere with the reproduction. So are there any benefits or reason evelotionary for this? And are there species where it's different? | [
0.08892637491226196,
-0.3931789994239807,
0.3597150146961212,
0.18367862701416016,
-0.8552197813987732,
-0.295943945646286,
0.1606331169605255,
-0.7464797496795654,
-0.07961932569742203,
0.1946592628955841,
1.047773838043213,
0.19090613722801208,
-1.2180548906326294,
0.7666975259780884,
... | |
t9bac | Is this picture of an airplane on Google Maps an example of the doppler effect on light? | Or is it some other phenomena? It seems to make sense since the plane is the only thing moving fast enough for it to be noticeable.
_URL_0_ | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c4kmjgw",
"c4kn2d3",
"c4kmn4x"
],
"text": [
"It looks like the satellite took blue, green, red, and luminance frames in quick succession.",
"No. It is an artifact caused by the fact that images are taken first with a blue, then a green and finally a red filter, and then combined to show the actual colour. The plane is moving fast enough that it is not in the same place for all of these images.\n\nTo see even a slight doppler shift of light you need speeds many orders of magnitude larger than anything we see on earth.",
"It is not from the Doppler effect. It's from how the satellite takes these colour images - through a number of filters in quick succession. If it were from the Doppler effect, you'd expect the smear of colours to be continuous.\n\nAlso, try searching r/askscience. You can find [this](_URL_1_) and [this](_URL_0_) thread about the exact same question."
],
"score": [
16,
4,
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://i.imgur.com/GAoqW.jpg"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rjtpa/what_causes_the_rainbow_effect_on_fast_moving/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ngpsh/is_this_rainbow_plane_in_google_earth_a_result_of/"
]
} | Is this picture of an airplane on Google Maps an example of the doppler effect on light?
Or is it some other phenomena? It seems to make sense since the plane is the only thing moving fast enough for it to be noticeable. _URL_0_ | [
-0.7470341920852661,
-0.37443771958351135,
0.6480382680892944,
-0.08214057981967926,
-0.5496121048927307,
-0.7113671898841858,
-0.08794727176427841,
-0.2823929190635681,
0.8577378392219543,
-0.07372895628213882,
1.3925037384033203,
0.11074264347553253,
-0.9866002798080444,
-0.0859610587358... | |
4hwqyd | Do all conductors equally conduct electricity and temperature? | Every substance I can think of that's a good conductor of electricity (metals, etc.) are also a good conductor of heat. And things that are good insulators (plastic, wood) also are good insulators of heat/cold. Is there anything that is a good/bad conductor of electricity and oppositely good/bad with heat/cold? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"d2teqsv"
],
"text": [
"It's something that will be roughly true if the same particles which conduct most of the heat also conduct most of the electricity. The [Wiedemann-Franz law](_URL_0_) holds for the case where electrons are the main contribution to both (it holds well for metals at temperatures high enough that contributions due to lattice vibrations/phonons are constant).\n\nBut this is not totally general. Diamonds have excellent thermal conductivity but poor electrical conductivity, because the thermal excitations are carried by lattice vibrations (phonons) which do not have charge. Superconductors have perfect conductivity but are very bad thermal conductors, since the electronic current is carried by bound states of electrons (\"Cooper pairs\") while thermal currents require breaking a pair so they are suppressed.\n\nSome previous /r/AskScience threads with more info:\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_2_"
],
"score": [
7
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiedemann–Franz_law",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/search?q=thermal+electric+conductivity&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/31g9ss/is_it_possible_for_a_substance_to_be_both_an/"
]
} | Do all conductors equally conduct electricity and temperature?
Every substance I can think of that's a good conductor of electricity (metals, etc.) are also a good conductor of heat. And things that are good insulators (plastic, wood) also are good insulators of heat/cold. Is there anything that is a good/bad conductor of electricity and oppositely good/bad with heat/cold? | [
0.08526182919740677,
-0.46317100524902344,
0.9987821578979492,
0.5579279065132141,
-0.6763626337051392,
-1.0628535747528076,
0.37091702222824097,
-0.8299751877784729,
0.7989140152931213,
-0.6951322555541992,
1.03608238697052,
0.23349276185035706,
-0.9651498794555664,
-0.24559560418128967,
... | |
5d0mf4 | Do any objects exist which do not have any/some of the following: position, shape, solidity/body? | Is it possible for something to exist without a particular position in space, specific shape or area that it takes up? Are there any things which don't have dimension? Is that just a contradiction?
Thanks! | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"da0wuit"
],
"text": [
"Fundamental particles, which everything is made of, are assumed to not have size. Therefore they do not have shape."
],
"score": [
9
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Do any objects exist which do not have any/some of the following: position, shape, solidity/body?
Is it possible for something to exist without a particular position in space, specific shape or area that it takes up? Are there any things which don't have dimension? Is that just a contradiction? Thanks! | [
-0.5675162672996521,
0.07596689462661743,
0.7532857060432434,
0.6724736094474792,
-0.6898144483566284,
-0.03428621217608452,
0.7249776721000671,
-0.5913193225860596,
-0.5855928063392639,
-0.23305605351924896,
0.5405603051185608,
0.06328488886356354,
-1.1091288328170776,
-0.4508392810821533... | |
3ozi9e | Who originally thought of Logic Gates and also how did an idea like that come to his mind in the first place? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cw3xeim",
"cw288cd"
],
"text": [
"What's wrong with WhackAMoleE's answer? It's broadly correct.\n\nThe question itself is a bit nebulous. Logic is a fundamental human faculty. Early thinkers - like Aristotle and Chrysippus of Soli - were the first to formalise it, according to records.\n\nHowever, I'm unsure this question isn't about the implementation of logic in electronics. Logic GATES were first built using relays, then vacuum tubes, then transistors. Joseph Henry invented the relay switch in 1835:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Bill Gates's older brother.\n\n[George Boole](_URL_1_) generally gets credit for inventing symbolic logic. But the study of sentential logic (statements connected by \"and,\" \"or,\" \"not\") goes back to Aristotle."
],
"score": [
3,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Henry",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Boole"
]
} | Who originally thought of Logic Gates and also how did an idea like that come to his mind in the first place?
| [
-0.47946617007255554,
-0.41193699836730957,
-0.2265225350856781,
-0.49736088514328003,
-0.5100808143615723,
-0.42009803652763367,
1.0766477584838867,
-0.5284761786460876,
0.8991804718971252,
0.3691287934780121,
0.8990840315818787,
-0.0845663771033287,
-0.20877905189990997,
0.09598123282194... | ||
z1xi7 | Curiosity is leaving tracks all over, how long will they last? | Given that the atmosphere is so thin on Mars, how long will these tracks last?
[Cool picture of tracks](_URL_0_) | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c60tbi2"
],
"text": [
"The surface of mars heats very quickly when turned towards the sun. Winds develop as a result of rapid temperature change due to the fact that mars has very low thermal inertia. This gives mars morning and evening breezes/winds, similar to Earth actually.\n\nFurthermore, dust storms are common on the Martian surface. When the Mariner 9 probe arrived in 1971, nearly the entire planet was engulfed in a dust storm, with windspeeds of up to 60mph.\n\nIt is not like the moon. It has an atmosphere, wind resistance, and therefore has weather as thermal pockets are stirred by alternating heat and cold. They will NOT last a few hundred years, I'd be surprised if they last a month."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia15694.html"
]
} | {
"url": []
} | Curiosity is leaving tracks all over, how long will they last?
Given that the atmosphere is so thin on Mars, how long will these tracks last? [Cool picture of tracks](_URL_0_) | [
-0.19752374291419983,
-0.06731747835874557,
1.3017776012420654,
-0.15744753181934357,
-0.09599683433771133,
-0.8329999446868896,
-0.9044867157936096,
-0.4710119068622589,
0.19295646250247955,
-0.14727230370044708,
0.923582911491394,
0.5367467999458313,
-0.5160560607910156,
0.52400380373001... | |
2i1rhg | If a majority of people think something is true, does it make it true? | My brother and I had an argument and the question is, if a majority of people think something is true, does it make it true? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cky2glu",
"cky1cdp"
],
"text": [
"I would say that line of reasoning applies to moral situations, not factual ones. If the question is \"does the earth revolve around the sun\", there is empirical data to back of such a statement, data that is not subject to opinions. If the question is \"did I act like a jerk a minute ago\", then majority opinion is all you can use as evidence. You can show a red piece of paper to 100 people and ask them what color it is, and if the light reflecting off is 700nm it's red regardless of what the poll shows. However moral/ethical situations have a lot more room for interpretation, which is why a jury verdict in this country (USA, I can't speak for the legal systems in other countries) requires a unanimous vote note a majority vote.",
"Of course not. Scientific proof makes something true. Facts. You can take a million opinions and they don't equal solid, factual, scientific proof. I am assuming religion was part of your discussion, or you intend it to be. It is a perfect example."
],
"score": [
8,
6
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | If a majority of people think something is true, does it make it true?
My brother and I had an argument and the question is, if a majority of people think something is true, does it make it true? | [
0.19087426364421844,
-0.7812483310699463,
0.73320472240448,
0.7478767037391663,
-0.3341982662677765,
-0.1054643988609314,
0.8287440538406372,
-0.548088014125824,
0.5807497501373291,
0.4196111559867859,
0.0759127289056778,
0.05216854438185692,
0.14323244988918304,
0.045854002237319946,
-0... | |
76ls55 | Would the supposed "floor tile energy generators" actually work? | This is what I'm talking about: _URL_0_ | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"dof2pik",
"dog13w3"
],
"text": [
"The video shows floor tiles moving about 3 cm (very rough estimate). The acceleration due to gravity is 9.8m/s/s. Let's assume a 70kg person, so the work done depressing a floor tile is 70kg * 9.8m/s/s *0.03m = 20 Joules. I would estimate that 50 steps would make 1000 Joules of energy provided the generators are perfectly efficienct. \n\nTheir infographic in the video is more conservative, showing 65 J for 14 steps, so about 233 J for 50 steps. This seems a more realistic efficiency to me.\n\n233J is about 0.000065 kWh. If the cost of 1 kWh were 15 cents, a 50 step visit would produce about 0.001 cents worth of electricity.",
"Generally, any power generation coming from the mechanical work of humans is going to be pathetic relative to contemporary needs.\n\nAnything generated by humans who aren't fit and getting really sweaty is going to be lame to the point of insignificance.\n\nA decent endurance athlete using a cycle or elliptical can sustain a few hundred watts for an hour, assuming no loss and high effort. Given a typical household energy consumption of 1.2-1.5 kW, you'd need 3-6 cyclists going at it at any one time to keep your house nominally powered; probably more than 20 working shifts to do 24/7.\n\nNow scale down the effort to a lazy footfall on a tile. A concert hall of people stepping on these continuously may power a lightbulb or two, but nothing significant.\n\nThis is absolutely novelty-only territory."
],
"score": [
22,
9
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.pavegen.com/about"
]
} | {
"url": []
} | Would the supposed "floor tile energy generators" actually work?
This is what I'm talking about: _URL_0_ | [
-0.23867018520832062,
-0.5037664771080017,
1.0192099809646606,
0.007046082988381386,
-0.4779634177684784,
-0.7462974786758423,
0.9512948393821716,
-0.05072078853845596,
0.7684877514839172,
-0.5600327253341675,
-0.219997838139534,
0.5707895159721375,
-1.0725080966949463,
-0.0647361055016517... | |
mlf1k | I get it was big... but what banged? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c31uogg"
],
"text": [
"I can't explain the theory to you, but I do have a bit of interesting information about its name. Fred Hoyle, who championed a rival cosmological theory, coined \"Big Bang\" (during a 50's radio broadcast) to be a term of derision, but the name was so catchy that it stuck."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | I get it was big... but what banged?
| [
-0.4718370735645294,
-0.7446368932723999,
0.4434933364391327,
-0.410493403673172,
-1.0024021863937378,
-0.8337486982345581,
-0.12864133715629578,
0.7659202218055725,
-0.7636095881462097,
-0.03359922766685486,
0.8431206941604614,
0.40146151185035706,
0.524746298789978,
-0.12911275029182434,... | ||
1ki19v | Why do physicists use re-normalization? | Doesn't the need for it imply that the mathematical models are incorrect? Do the rest of the mathematics remain consistent when the technique is taken as consistent? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cbp94ql",
"cbpf3vu"
],
"text": [
"A short answer is that we use renormalization because it gives us a description of nature that is consistent with what we observe.\n\nA longer answer would go something like this: The naive approach to quantum field theory introduces infinities. Renormalization is a mathematically consistent and specific technique that produces finite results for observable quantities in quantum field theory. This is important: once we introduce renormalization as part of the computational method, everything is completely specified and self-consistent.\n\nDoes renormalization itself imply that the mathematical models are incorrect? No, though it might imply that the kind of model we have to describe nature isn't the kind you were expecting. But that is a separate question; that could be a consequence of the model not being the final story, or it could be that one's expectations were wrong.",
"Physicists felt a lot more comfortable about renormalization after the work of Ken Wilson on the renormalization group. Basically what he says is that our description of nature using a given quantum field theory, such as the standard model, should only be thought of as an effective description which is valid only for processes of sufficiently low energy. The infinities in quantum field theory typically arise when we extrapolate the theory to arbitrarily high energies, but this is neither justified nor necessary, and there is a perfectly well-defined procedure of throwing away all this extra baggage without sacrificing any predictive power when it comes to the lower energy processes. In this point of view, however, there is still the question of what a complete theory, valid to arbitrarily high energies, would look like, and that is something physicists are still working on."
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Why do physicists use re-normalization?
Doesn't the need for it imply that the mathematical models are incorrect? Do the rest of the mathematics remain consistent when the technique is taken as consistent? | [
-0.4290575385093689,
-0.2770446836948395,
0.796381950378418,
0.4638660252094269,
-0.7748237252235413,
-0.5475771427154541,
0.4509790241718292,
-0.9629618525505066,
1.0520660877227783,
-0.082102932035923,
0.9319539666175842,
0.3056390881538391,
-0.6687403321266174,
0.1656237244606018,
0.1... | |
v6uxc | Help with my Thought Experiment? | I came up with this while looking over the special relativity stuff for my A Level, so I may not be able to do it because I don't know "higher" stuff, but here goes.
Imagine a perfectly smooth, spherical planet. The circumference of the circle at the widest point is 0.9 light years (it's a big planet). I, and my family, live on this circumference. I can run at 0.9c. If I run at 0.9c around the circumference (so the journey takes 1 year), what will happen to me and family's relative ages. Will I be older, younger or the same age than if I hadn't embarked on my epic trek?
My guess was I would be younger, due to the time dilation as a result of me running at 0.9c, but what about the centripetal acceleration towards the centre of the planet and the effect that has (I think GR comes in here, but I don't know)?
Thanks for any answers. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c51vbhz",
"c51vhh7"
],
"text": [
"assuming that you will stay on the ground (gravitational force is greater than the centripetal force) then you would have experienced the journey as taking 0.45 years. T = t /sqrt(1-v^2 /c^2 ). If you want to know if the assumption is correct, you need to specify the mass or density of the planet. M > r*v^2 /γ for you to stay on the ground, assuming no drag or lift from friction. where M is the mass of the planet, r the radius, v your speed, and γ the gravitational constant.",
"The centripetal acceleration would actually be the only thing that makes you appear younger than your family at the end of the trek, as it were. Time dialation in special relativity is a two-way street. If your frame differs from your family's frame by velocity alone, you will both think that the other is younger. Only via the differing acceleration do you both agree that you have experienced less time."
],
"score": [
3,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Help with my Thought Experiment?
I came up with this while looking over the special relativity stuff for my A Level, so I may not be able to do it because I don't know "higher" stuff, but here goes. Imagine a perfectly smooth, spherical planet. The circumference of the circle at the widest point is 0.9 light years (it's a big planet). I, and my family, live on this circumference. I can run at 0.9c. If I run at 0.9c around the circumference (so the journey takes 1 year), what will happen to me and family's relative ages. Will I be older, younger or the same age than if I hadn't embarked on my epic trek? My guess was I would be younger, due to the time dilation as a result of me running at 0.9c, but what about the centripetal acceleration towards the centre of the planet and the effect that has (I think GR comes in here, but I don't know)? Thanks for any answers. | [
-0.5450454950332642,
-0.49839091300964355,
1.0665277242660522,
-0.23073884844779968,
-0.6892397999763489,
-0.791907012462616,
-0.47890087962150574,
-0.3996768593788147,
0.4474881589412689,
-0.10424964874982834,
0.8093500733375549,
0.31997984647750854,
-0.5584849715232849,
0.994912922382354... | |
1902vz | How is this formation formed? | Hi, I found this formation really cool and would love an explanation of how this is formed.
_URL_0_ | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c8kmve5"
],
"text": [
"The type of rock appears to be bedded sandstones which has undergone jointing, and fracturing along bedding planes, as well as weathering and erosion from both wind and water (and speculatively, given the tectonic history of the region, maybe some minor faulting as well). I am not 100% certain, but it appears to have a texture similar to that of which is known as Tafoni or Honeycomb / Alveolar weathering. This particular sandstone located in the sinai desert is '[abound with salt and natron](_URL_1_)' which is important to note with regards to the formation mechanism. \nIn coastal environments, the role of salty seawater and salt spray in the weathering process is emphasized whereas in humid, inland environments the irregular flow of solutions through porous rocks, case hardening and the presence of salts seem to be the most important factors for honeycomb weathering. The wind might play a role in the initial formation of alveoli in salt-loaded rocks while gravity and oriented pressure influence their shape. The evolution of an alveole from a small pit in the surface of a homogeneous rock solely by salt crystallisation during wetting / drying cycles is also a factor and corresponds to the suggestion that the deepening of alveoli is in general (apart from any specific weathering mechanism) a self-reinforcing process.\nMany locations around the world share this morphological texture, including the [Elbe Sandstone Mountains](_URL_0_) in Saxony, Germany."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/EarthPorn/comments/18z8t5/sinai_desert_egypt_2534_x_1900_oc/"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Wabenverwitterung.jpg",
"http://jgslegacy.lyellcollection.org/content/22/1-2/491.short"
]
} | How is this formation formed?
Hi, I found this formation really cool and would love an explanation of how this is formed. _URL_0_ | [
-0.36111119389533997,
0.049086906015872955,
0.9155833125114441,
-0.4382324516773224,
-0.6730426549911499,
-0.624254047870636,
-0.4021034240722656,
0.2370433807373047,
0.8879469633102417,
-0.29563435912132263,
0.737591564655304,
0.711544394493103,
-0.05713403597474098,
0.49639061093330383,
... | |
1nvzj8 | How does the liedenfrost effect work on saw-tooth-like surfaces? | I recently watched a video on the liedenfrost effect (_URL_0_), I understand why the water takes a long time to evaporate but not why it moves in a fixed direction | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"ccmnuxk"
],
"text": [
"The ratchet of the substrate does not allow the gas to escape in all directions. The ratchet rectifies the gas flow, i.e., gas has an easier time to flow with the ratchet. This results in a propulsion as the droplet is effectively blowing the steam in only one direction.\n\nSee also this nature paper (_URL_0_) and search for ratchet instead of sawtooth if you want to discover other sources."
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c37_1380787459"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n5/full/nphys1925.html"
]
} | How does the liedenfrost effect work on saw-tooth-like surfaces?
I recently watched a video on the liedenfrost effect (_URL_0_), I understand why the water takes a long time to evaporate but not why it moves in a fixed direction | [
0.06097719818353653,
-0.222075417637825,
1.034466028213501,
-0.06776159256696701,
-0.3920357823371887,
-0.34458523988723755,
0.03619716316461563,
-0.4296758770942688,
1.0510380268096924,
0.17064645886421204,
1.2899655103683472,
0.29113417863845825,
-0.2880780100822449,
1.0495764017105103,
... | |
klu7o | Exactly how does the Dyson Air Multiplier work? | I understand at a basic level what's going on: air is sucked in through the base, and somehow manipulated through the hoop at the top to draw in air from behind and around the unit.
How exactly is that accomplished? What properties of air are being manipulated?
[Pic](_URL_1_)
[Video](_URL_0_) | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c2lawm5",
"c2lb1ls"
],
"text": [
"Their [website](_URL_0_) is helpful. Basically the air they suck up from the base is accelerated and force out the little holes making jets (the red area in the image). Its like using your thumb on the hose to make the water go further (therefore faster). The difference in pressure pulls the air behind the fan through as well.",
"It's air induction, a main flow of air pulls surrounding air into it and when it's forced through a smaller radius (the ring) it speeds up. Look up Venturi's."
],
"score": [
3,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI_f9nFZAnk",
"http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2437/4005911431_1bcb03b443_o.jpg"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.dyson.com/insideDyson/article.asp?aID=Air_Mult_Tech_Dev&hf=&js="
]
} | Exactly how does the Dyson Air Multiplier work?
I understand at a basic level what's going on: air is sucked in through the base, and somehow manipulated through the hoop at the top to draw in air from behind and around the unit. How exactly is that accomplished? What properties of air are being manipulated? [Pic](_URL_1_) [Video](_URL_0_) | [
-0.45563414692878723,
-0.45528119802474976,
0.14606979489326477,
0.2491166889667511,
-0.612969696521759,
-0.6750666499137878,
0.07769729942083359,
0.04364657774567604,
1.2326629161834717,
-0.5170636177062988,
0.9259299635887146,
0.16047850251197815,
-0.6471738815307617,
0.0369165800511837,... | |
j8u6d | Voltage. Why doesn't distance seem to come into play? | My title may seem confusing... but that's just because I'm utterly confused by voltage.
If voltage is the difference in electric potential between two points, and electric potential in a point is determined only by the strength of the electric field and the distance from the field, why do electricity sources only seem to depend on electric field strength?
I must be misunderstanding something.
Shouldn't separating the two ends of a voltage source be difficult, and result in a higher voltage drop?
There must be something I'm misunderstanding, because I can't find anything on this online.
This is just one of my many questions about voltage. Thanks in advance. :D | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c2a55wv",
"c2a35k0",
"c2a2zn4"
],
"text": [
"> Shouldn't separating the two ends of a voltage source be difficult, and result in a higher voltage drop?\n\nYes, and this absolutely works if you think of an example like a parallel-plate capacitor, where you have positive charge on one plate, and negative charge on the other.\n\nYou must exert energy (do work) to pull the two plates further apart, and doing so increases the potential difference between the two plates.\n\n\nI think that your question is basically, why does voltage not change when you do this with something connected to a battery?\n\nThe answer to this is that the 9V battery is an electrochemical source that will move charge however much is required (within reason) in order to maintain a potential difference of 9V between the terminals. \n\nSo if you charge a capacitor by connecting it to a battery, the battery supplies just enough charge to maintain a 9V difference between the plates. If you adjust the separation while leaving the battery connected, charge will flow in such a manner to counteract your movement and return the difference to 9V.\n\nPower from the wall is similar, in this case a far away generator is supplying current as required to maintain a potential difference.",
"An electric field can be thought of as a 2D landscape. Peaks in your landscape correspond to positive charges, while low points are negative (or less positive) charges. The slope of a particular point would indicate the direction and strength of the electric field there. In this analogy, the potential refers to the height of a particular point. A voltage is the difference in height between two points (the potential drop).\n\nWhen you have a 12-volt battery, the electric field surrounding it changes as you connect and disconnect different circuits. The voltage, however, is still 12-volts between the terminals. Electrical power points will have different electric fields between the live and neutral depending on what kind of plug they are designed to accept. A 240-volt outlet is still a 240-volt outlet, though, whether it is designed to accept a common household or a larger industrial plug (with pins separated further and thus a weaker electric field).\n\nSo it is exactly because voltage is invariant to the distance separating the source and ground (or live and neutral) that we use it as a specifier.\n\nEDIT: Missing word.",
"Typically, there is a voltage drop over distance, as even a long conductor can act as a resistor. In fact, this is how some resistors are made (specifically potentiometers).\n\nHowever, you may be interested in the Ferranti effect, where the voltage actually goes up over long distance transmission lines.\n\n_URL_0_"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferranti_effect"
]
} | Voltage. Why doesn't distance seem to come into play?
My title may seem confusing... but that's just because I'm utterly confused by voltage. If voltage is the difference in electric potential between two points, and electric potential in a point is determined only by the strength of the electric field and the distance from the field, why do electricity sources only seem to depend on electric field strength? I must be misunderstanding something. Shouldn't separating the two ends of a voltage source be difficult, and result in a higher voltage drop? There must be something I'm misunderstanding, because I can't find anything on this online. This is just one of my many questions about voltage. Thanks in advance. :D | [
-0.1255681812763214,
-0.39346131682395935,
0.8646658062934875,
0.07716411352157593,
-0.808410108089447,
0.051872313022613525,
-0.02211572974920273,
-0.6946210265159607,
0.7472419142723083,
0.6628823280334473,
0.8340709209442139,
0.5101739764213562,
-0.7861709594726562,
0.09551676362752914,... | |
2zl9ub | Why is this snail a rock now? | _URL_0_
Instead of dust. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cpkzp43"
],
"text": [
"Odds are that this is (was) a marine species of some sort. I'm no gastropod expert, so I can't be sure about that, but a great many fossils of this type are. The reason for that is that once the snail died, the shell ended up on the floor of the ocean or lake and was buried in sediment. That's a key step in a lot of fossil formation, being covered in fine-grained sediment that keeps piling up. These layers of sediment can eventually end up as sedimentary rock, after millions of years, and a lot of excellent fossils are found in shale and limestone formations, which are the rocks formed from old lake and ocean bottoms. (Some spectacular examples are the fossils from Solnhofen, Germany and the Green River formation in Wyoming - Google those if you want to see some jaw-dropping, world-class specimens).\n\nBeing buried in this kind of sediment does several things. It's a low-oxygen environment, which keeps some of the more aggressive decomposition from disturbing things. For shells, it can fill the inside cavity, and it also settles into all the cracks and crevices of the outside, preserving details. Many fossil shells are actually inside or outside molds of the mud that's been turned into rock, with the original shell not necessarily being preserved, or only being visible as a changed layer of rock because of the different chemistry.\n\nSo the short answer is \"buried in mud, and left undisturbed as the mud gradually turned into rock\"."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://i.imgur.com/4Mfh9Qb.jpg"
]
} | {
"url": []
} | Why is this snail a rock now?
_URL_0_ Instead of dust. | [
-0.865124523639679,
-0.17326895892620087,
0.17069628834724426,
-0.4617233872413635,
-0.7707715630531311,
-0.8022618293762207,
0.24655017256736755,
0.657039225101471,
0.06369347870349884,
0.9875370264053345,
0.1561804711818695,
0.7701988816261292,
-0.3375398516654968,
0.5084246397018433,
... | |
2hqclg | How are real time statistics (player heat maps or passing percentages) generated in team sports? | I'm interested particularly in football (soccer) but I'm more than open to hearing how statistics are generated in any team sport.
For example, here is a [heat map of Lionel Messi in a recent football match for FC Barcelona](_URL_0_)
How is this data collected, analyzed and then compiled to produce things like heat maps, average possession percentages of a team or average kilometers run? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"ckvew4l"
],
"text": [
"Believe it or not, but a lot of data is actually generated by a a large bunch of guys clicking fanatically on a computer. They track every player's movement, passing etc.\n\nApparently cameras and sensors can't track everything, so data is generated manually and sometimes live. The companies doing this sell the data to clubs, leagues and broadcasters.\n\n[Fivethirtyeight](_URL_0_) wrote an article about it."
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://thesecretfootballanalyst.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/messi-granada-heat-mao.jpg"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-people-tracking-every-touch-pass-and-tackle-in-the-world-cup/"
]
} | How are real time statistics (player heat maps or passing percentages) generated in team sports?
I'm interested particularly in football (soccer) but I'm more than open to hearing how statistics are generated in any team sport. For example, here is a [heat map of Lionel Messi in a recent football match for FC Barcelona](_URL_0_) How is this data collected, analyzed and then compiled to produce things like heat maps, average possession percentages of a team or average kilometers run? | [
0.3098960518836975,
-0.46481016278266907,
0.14541682600975037,
0.2007327675819397,
-0.9041370749473572,
-0.3457074463367462,
-0.1166013777256012,
-0.43022897839546204,
1.149915099143982,
0.3036230504512787,
0.5584701895713806,
0.3016907870769501,
-0.9549306035041809,
0.452864408493042,
-... | |
1g4fbo | Unknown precipitate in electrolysis process. | Yesterday I made a simple electrolysis unit out of a water bottle and used two paper clips as my cathode and anode. After running a current through a NaCl solution for approximately 7 minutes, a brown precipitate started to form on the surface of the newly separated solution. What was this brown precipitate? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cago6x3",
"cags5e9"
],
"text": [
"Likely iron oxides/hyrdoxides. Did the paper clips become 'rusty'?",
"If you weigh the anode paper clip before and after, it should get lighter from iron being reduced and going into solution. You should also see bubbles at the cathode. I don't know your driving voltage to know every possible reaction, but this is probably it:\nFe -- > Fe3+ + 3e- anode (oxidation)\n2H+ +2e- -- > H2(g) cathode (reduction)\n2Fe + 6H+ -- > 2Fe3+ + 3H2(g)\n\nSince the H+ is coming from water, you'll also have OH- forming. If you can check the pH or add indicator, the final solution should be basic. Under basic conditions, Fe(OH)3 is insoluble."
],
"score": [
8,
6
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Unknown precipitate in electrolysis process.
Yesterday I made a simple electrolysis unit out of a water bottle and used two paper clips as my cathode and anode. After running a current through a NaCl solution for approximately 7 minutes, a brown precipitate started to form on the surface of the newly separated solution. What was this brown precipitate? | [
-0.359313428401947,
-0.8645851016044617,
0.6881473064422607,
-0.1499134600162506,
-0.2710409164428711,
-0.6997057199478149,
-0.361078679561615,
-0.5890277028083801,
1.1199744939804077,
-0.05797756835818291,
1.3420424461364746,
0.3658405840396881,
-0.10832871496677399,
0.890057384967804,
... | |
17gvmd | Why would I need to know the specific gravity of a Loctite compound? | While looking at the item here: _URL_0_, I saw the final spec being a specific gravity of 1.16. All of the other specs are useful, but in what kind of situation would I need to know that? I have an automotive background and I was ordering Loctite to temporarily band-aid a slipping carrier bearing race in a Dana 44. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c85i7cd"
],
"text": [
"The full [datasheet](_URL_0_) is actually even more detailed and specifies the viscosity too. It looks like this particular adhesive is sold in large quantities for industrial applications also, not just to consumers. In industrial applications knowing specific gravity and viscosity can be important if the adhesive is going to be applied by automated metering and dispensing equipment."
],
"score": [
10
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.all-spec.com/products/62015.html"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://tds.loctite.com/tds5/docs/620-EN.pdf"
]
} | Why would I need to know the specific gravity of a Loctite compound?
While looking at the item here: _URL_0_, I saw the final spec being a specific gravity of 1.16. All of the other specs are useful, but in what kind of situation would I need to know that? I have an automotive background and I was ordering Loctite to temporarily band-aid a slipping carrier bearing race in a Dana 44. | [
-0.25652003288269043,
-0.05905424803495407,
0.5397427678108215,
-0.2611277103424072,
-0.8230217099189758,
-0.48550769686698914,
-0.32522037625312805,
-0.6175925135612488,
0.8698589205741882,
0.32558292150497437,
0.7458831071853638,
0.6459571719169617,
-0.6160128712654114,
0.172851115465164... | |
6qsfdt | How does one find the activation threshold of a diode? | I've been tinkering with some electrical circuits as inspired by my physics class and while graphing some different kinds of diodes under rising voltage, I noticed the before they come a mostly constant resistance they a sometimes slow, sometimes fast ramp up, looking a lot like an exponentional function. What causes this behaviour, when in theory they should just have 1 activation voltage? If I wanted to find the specific voltage myself, do I simply take the point with the lowest amount of current, or do I compensate for the ramp up somehow? I feel this is tied to my imperfect understanding of what exactly a semiconductor is | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"dkzwg44",
"dkznslm"
],
"text": [
"The theoretically ideal PN diode has the voltage-current relationship \n\nI = I_d (e^V/Vth - 1)\n\nThis is the Shockley Diode Law. I is the current through the diode, V is the voltage across it, I_d is the reverse bias saturation current and Vth is the thermal voltage (kT/q where k is Boltzman's constant, T is the temperature in Kelvin, and q is the charge of an electron). \n\nDeriving that equation is beyond the scope of this post, suffice to say if you take a course on semiconductor physics you'll cover it in depth. \n\nThat equation however does give you some insight into the exponential relationship of the I-V curve and how it shifts with temperature, if you choose some value for the reverse bias current you'll see that small changes in voltage require massive changes in current. The \"on\" voltage of a diode is more or less the point where reasonable increases in current no longer have meaningful increases in voltage.",
"You can find the \"turn-on\" voltage of a diode in tables and documentation about diodes. If you want to measure it experimentally, you can measure the current through the diode as a function of the applied voltage and plot it. You'll be able to tell when the diode is \"on\" and when it's \"off\"."
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | How does one find the activation threshold of a diode?
I've been tinkering with some electrical circuits as inspired by my physics class and while graphing some different kinds of diodes under rising voltage, I noticed the before they come a mostly constant resistance they a sometimes slow, sometimes fast ramp up, looking a lot like an exponentional function. What causes this behaviour, when in theory they should just have 1 activation voltage? If I wanted to find the specific voltage myself, do I simply take the point with the lowest amount of current, or do I compensate for the ramp up somehow? I feel this is tied to my imperfect understanding of what exactly a semiconductor is | [
-0.3816866874694824,
-0.36494874954223633,
0.8467807173728943,
-0.1338638812303543,
-0.6397695541381836,
-0.4524039030075073,
-0.19067732989788055,
-0.8832363486289978,
1.176054835319519,
0.19677314162254333,
1.0558969974517822,
0.045877471566200256,
-0.4659373164176941,
0.2488778531551361... | |
1vwegr | What are some of the more pertinent differences and comparisons between a pacemaker and a defibrillator? | Particularly where it concerns the elderly, but anything at all would be wonderfully awesome to hear. Thanks! | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cewuu9q",
"cexgthp"
],
"text": [
"A [pacemaker](_URL_0_) is a device surgically implanted into the chest, with wires in direct contact with the muscle of the heart. The purpose of a pacemaker is to keep the heart beating at an appropriate rate. \n\nNormally, the heart stimulates itself to beat, roughly 60 times a minute in a healthy adult. The stimulation to contract comes from the region of the heart called the [sinoatrial node](_URL_3_) (located in the right atrium of the heart), which has cells called \"pacemaker cells\" that effectively set the heart rate. In some people, the sinoatrial node can cease to function normally, resulting in [sick sinus syndrome](_URL_1_). When this happens, other regions of the heart act as the pacemaker, and the heart will beat much more slowly. Needless to say, this can be dangerous for the patient.\n\nTo treat this, pacemakers can be used. They generate an electric current stimulating the heart to contract. The rate at which this current is generated can be programmed, so that it causes the heart to beat quickly enough so as not to experience any problems.\n\nPacemakers can also be used in some patients experiencing [heart block](_URL_5_). In normal people, the sinoatrial node stimulates the heart to contract, and a wave of electricity passes across the heart. In patients with heart block, there is a problem with electrical conduction in the heart, and so some parts of the heart may not contract. If this can't be treated any other way, a pacemaker may be inserted to ensure the entire heart contracts when it should (this can be achieved because the pacemaker wires can contact multiple regions of the heart).\n\nIn contrast with this is the [defibrillator](_URL_2_). I've linked there to the implantable version, as I'm sure that's where you'd like the differences to be explained. By far the more common defibrillator is the external defibrillator, which is used in critical care situations.\n\nThe defibrillator is so-called because it stops [fibrillation](_URL_4_), the rapid and uncoordinated contraction of muscle. When that happens in the ventricles of the heart (the two larger chambers that pump blood away from the heart), the cardiac output can drop to the point of death. Defibrillation is the process of stopping that, by applying a short burst of electrical current, designed to reset all the cells it affects to the same point in the cycle of contraction. This then allows the restoration of normal rhythm. Atrial fibrillation, whilst also serious is nowhere near as life-threatening. \n\nDefibrillators are only implanted in patients at a high risk of experiencing fibrillation, but their heart beats at a normal rhythm. Pacemakers are fitted in patients whose heart either does not beat at a normal rhythm, or does not beat fast enough.\n\nModern pacemakers often have a defibrillator function built-in, so they can protect the patient in the event that they fall into ventricular fibrillation.",
"I work as an engineer in this field. Here is a very simplified view of the available systems.\n\nThe prime difference between the three types of devices (pacemaker, cardioverter defibrillator, cardiac re-synchronization therapy) is the treatment the device offers.\n\n* A pacemaker is the oldest therapy. It treats a heart that doesn't beat quickly enough by electrically stimulating the muscle on each beat. Not all people with pacemakers need them to live, but they improve quality of life by stepping in when the heart's natural electrical signal cannot keep up with demand. Voltage and energy levels are very low, only what is needed to contract the heart muscle.\n* A defibrillator came next. A defibrillator acts in a similar way to the devices most Americans have seen on shows like ER, where the doctor rubs two paddles together and shouts \"CLEAR!\" and shocks the patient. When the heart's electrical system enters a state called fibrillation, the high voltage, high energy jolt in effect resets the heart and allows it to restore normal rhythm. Without one of these devices, the patient would likely die. [Here is a video of a soccer player experiencing sudden death and an implantable defibrillator saving his life.](_URL_6_)\n* A CRT device is the most recent therapy and is used when the left side of the heart is not beating in normal timing with the right side. This causes heart failure; the inability of the heart to pump enough blood to meet the demands of the body. I've heard it compared to two dance partners who don't know what they're doing. The device is similar to a pacemaker, but an additional lead (similar but different to a pacemaker lead) is placed in the left heart venous system to stimulate the left side of the heart in correct time to the right side of the heart. This increases the overall effectiveness of each beat and helps the patient feel much better by supplying more blood to the body."
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cardiac_pacemaker",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sick_sinus_syndrome",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implantable_cardioverter-defibrillator",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinoatrial_node",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibrillation",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_block",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU_i0ZzIV5U"
]
} | What are some of the more pertinent differences and comparisons between a pacemaker and a defibrillator?
Particularly where it concerns the elderly, but anything at all would be wonderfully awesome to hear. Thanks! | [
-0.35923829674720764,
0.18983004987239838,
1.537497639656067,
-0.28065165877342224,
-0.6109862923622131,
-0.14936387538909912,
-0.9881065487861633,
-1.114168405532837,
0.4254496991634369,
-0.8615023493766785,
0.7541326284408569,
1.0228581428527832,
-0.06407717615365982,
0.4847775399684906,... | |
c1zws7 | How do astronomical observatories make self-positioning? | If they have static "earth" coordinates, do they consider tectonic plates movement?
If they constantly calculate their coordinates what points they use for the references?
What the coordinate system do they use and where is origin of this system? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"eri6dz5",
"erhqgmp"
],
"text": [
"Hello, amateur astronomer here. I agree with my learned geologist friend that the baseline is where we know where to expect celestial bodies. This can quite easily be calculated using historic movements whilst factoring in other variables such as gravity of nearby bodies. \n\nOn a far grander scale they use very distant quasars and pulsars as they don’t “move” as much m much relative to the earth and are extremely bright. Any movement they do have can be negated by calculating the distance (redshift etc) and therefore calculating the rate of which it is moving away (inflation) from us. NASA uses this technology I believe, in conjunction with various other methods.",
"Hello geologist here. To answer part of your question the movement of plate techtonics is not take into account. This is because observatories use lattitude longitude elevation date time and orientation as their refecernce points for where they are and they sky should be at any given time, much like starmap apps on cell phones. \n\nWhile some plates move up to 10cm a year average movement is like 2-3cm a year so the effects on obsevatories are pretth minimal. \n\nThat being said, once there is enough diplacement over a great peroid of time the observatory would have a slightly different lattitude and longitude. I dont know if their coordinates would be automatically updated by gps, or if it would have to be done manually, but this wouldnt be a problem till far beyond the life expectancy of most observatories. Hope this answers some of your question!"
],
"score": [
10,
6
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | How do astronomical observatories make self-positioning?
If they have static "earth" coordinates, do they consider tectonic plates movement? If they constantly calculate their coordinates what points they use for the references? What the coordinate system do they use and where is origin of this system? | [
-0.32477670907974243,
0.31171631813049316,
1.0050368309020996,
0.30945098400115967,
-0.45884621143341064,
-0.13388216495513916,
-0.08394755423069,
-0.0171914491802454,
0.25145405530929565,
-0.19663278758525848,
1.0215932130813599,
0.8429152965545654,
-0.7214518189430237,
-0.032369595021009... | |
6g7wor | Why is there a dotted image on the side of public bus windows? | [deleted] | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"dip84sj"
],
"text": [
"It's called frit. Has a number of purposes- it's ceramic based paint that helps the adhesive bond to the window in the mount. It also minimizes UV reducing its ability to break down the sealant. \n\nAnd, I've heard they think it makes a car more appealing- so you don't go from black window gasket to window- it's a slow transition."
],
"score": [
9
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Why is there a dotted image on the side of public bus windows?
[deleted] | [
0.12599928677082062,
-0.31733599305152893,
0.40980565547943115,
-0.5563030242919922,
-0.6682091951370239,
-0.5064684152603149,
0.5842260718345642,
0.23940439522266388,
-0.8275403380393982,
0.4729740619659424,
0.1032901406288147,
0.8816673755645752,
-0.5925710797309875,
0.12810960412025452,... | |
1mciy9 | What are the mechanics behind humans being so adept at guessing the time? | What do we know about the human brain and it's estimation of how long time has passed?
Not exactly '*keeping time*', but being cut off from all recognisable sources of time's progression and still having the ability to say that "It's been five minutes.", when just 4:54 seconds have passed. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cc7wprp",
"cc7wa7q"
],
"text": [
"I thought we were notoriously bad at it? And that it varies hugely depending on person to person and things like age.",
"There's a couple of problems with that question. One, humans vary a lot in their ability to do this accurately. The other is that we really can't compare us to other animals in this way because it is very hard to ask other animals how much time they believe has passed. If, for example, a crow had a much better internal clock than you, what could the crow do to communicate that? How would it even know you want it to communicate that fact?"
],
"score": [
7,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | What are the mechanics behind humans being so adept at guessing the time?
What do we know about the human brain and it's estimation of how long time has passed? Not exactly '*keeping time*', but being cut off from all recognisable sources of time's progression and still having the ability to say that "It's been five minutes.", when just 4:54 seconds have passed. | [
-0.11351843178272247,
-0.35416126251220703,
0.8273767828941345,
0.6788738369941711,
-0.5157511234283447,
0.04902137443423271,
-0.22485551238059998,
-0.8027467131614685,
0.7103211283683777,
0.4573439657688141,
1.1407955884933472,
0.2589719593524933,
-0.13493674993515015,
0.32320091128349304... | |
1batg0 | Q from my 5-year old: did dinosaurs have boogers? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c957s07"
],
"text": [
"[Birds are more likely related to dinosaurs](_URL_1_), rather than reptiles to dinosaurs, and birds do get [nasal mucus](_URL_0_).\n\nA booger by any other name is still a [booger](_URL_2_)."
],
"score": [
54
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.birds-online.de/gesundheit/gesinfektion/erkaeltung_en.htm",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinorrhea"
]
} | Q from my 5-year old: did dinosaurs have boogers?
| [
-0.7722263336181641,
-0.9585553407669067,
0.009508924558758736,
-0.3433587849140167,
-0.5660839676856995,
-0.2311054766178131,
-0.35927069187164307,
-0.5364941954612732,
-0.18088263273239136,
1.016797661781311,
0.8917805552482605,
0.40264713764190674,
0.012489845976233482,
1.07633638381958... | ||
jwe03 | I took a summer course in biochemistry and the professor said it was bad to eat while you study? Why is this? | He never really explained it and I didn't think to ask unti now... any reasonable explanation for this?
I'm generally curious. I'm studying right now so I don't want to jinx myself by grabbing a snack.
Since ive heard that i've always taken a complete break to go off and eat or whatever. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c2ftvas",
"c2fob8v",
"c2fnvah"
],
"text": [
"From this article: _URL_0_\nIn short: When you eat, your stomach secretes acid. The protons secreted in the stomach acid come from your blood stream. These protons are ultimately reabsorbed so that it stays in balance, but there is a period of time during which the protons have been secreted, but not yet reabsorbed. This window period is known as \"alkaline tide.\" During this period, your blood becomes slightly basic or \"alkaline\" since the protons that are normally in the blood are currently in the stomach acid. This would result in a higher than normal blood pH. \n\n2) The third paragraph of this article explains the effects of increased blood pH on the brain: _URL_1_. \n\nIn short, the blood vessels constrict as a result of the increased pH, resulting in less blood supplied to your brain. With less blood sent to your brain, less glucose and oxygen is delivered, both of which are required for your brain to be metabolically active. In other words, your brain (central nervous system in general) does not have enough energy to perform its normal functions with decreased blood supply. You would experience this as being sleepy or generally feeling like your brain is working slower.",
"If you're trying to eat healthy, it might be a bad idea:\n\n[ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS THAT INCREASE THE FOOD INTAKE AND CONSUMPTION VOLUME OF UNKNOWING CONSUMERS](_URL_2_)\n > Whereas part of the overconsumption associated with distractions such as television and magazines can be related to longer meals, another part of it is due to how the distraction can obscure one’s ability to accurately monitor how much has been eaten. One controlled study showed that people who ate lunch while listening to a detective story ate 15% more than those who ate their lunch in silence (5). Distractions such as television, reading, movies, and sporting events may simply redirect attention to the point where orosensory signals of satiation are ignored",
"Just speculation here.. I was wondering perhaps if more blood is directed toward organs and tissue involved in digestive processes and away from your brain."
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkaline_Tide",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperventilation",
"http://www.ama-med.org.ar/obesidad/Factores_ambientales.pdf"
]
} | I took a summer course in biochemistry and the professor said it was bad to eat while you study? Why is this?
He never really explained it and I didn't think to ask unti now... any reasonable explanation for this? I'm generally curious. I'm studying right now so I don't want to jinx myself by grabbing a snack. Since ive heard that i've always taken a complete break to go off and eat or whatever. | [
0.0036721734795719385,
-0.13274407386779785,
0.6412374973297119,
-0.32205644249916077,
-0.6063869595527649,
-0.5048635601997375,
-0.5644841194152832,
-0.5335976481437683,
1.3951269388198853,
0.9165441393852234,
0.6319671273231506,
0.7378081679344177,
0.2569928467273712,
1.2165881395339966,... | |
51nk8c | If one were to artificially increase the hydronium ion concentration in the intermembrane space in the mitochondria to a huge amount, could you force the electron transport chain to work backwards? | The transfer of electrons from one electron carrier to the next is favorable at every step of the electron transport chain, thus every subsequent carrier has a higher reduction potential than the last. This favorable passage of electrons works to create the concentration gradient of hydronium ions on either side of the inner membrane of the mitochondria. Would it be possible to make the gradient so large that the passage of hydronium ions into the mitochondrial matrix from the intermembrane space outweighs the disfavorability of passing electrons back up the electron transport chain, to electron carriers with lower reduction potential? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"d7ephjk",
"d7elss0"
],
"text": [
"Yes and no. The components of the electron transport chain can be made to run in reverse in the sense that electrons can be made to flow backwards, but the proton pumping of the electron transport chain does not work in reverse [ref1](_URL_1_), [ref2](_URL_2_). This is a phenomenon termed [reverse electron flow](_URL_3_) and it can happen in conditions similar to what you describe. [A very high external proton content can trigger electrons to flow backwards through complex I of the ETC](_URL_0_), but this typically requires a very high proton gradient, and a blockage of the down stream ETC complexes or ATP synthase.\n\nThere are a lot of regulatory mechanisms in the mitochondria to sense dangerously high proton gradients, and relieve this stress on mitochondria. The ETC, ATP synthase and most transport proteins in the mitochondria are membrane potential sensitive. Additionally the complex known as the permeability transition pore will open to uncouple the membrane.",
"There are no hydronium ions in the intermembrane space. It is all hydrogen ions. The final electron acceptor in chemiosmosis is oxygen. That's why the final products are ATP and water in the electron transport chain."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1133807/",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2605959/",
"http://www.bioscirep.org/content/ppbioscirep/17/3/259.full.pdf",
"http://www.life.illinois.edu/crofts/bioph354/lect11.html"
]
} | If one were to artificially increase the hydronium ion concentration in the intermembrane space in the mitochondria to a huge amount, could you force the electron transport chain to work backwards?
The transfer of electrons from one electron carrier to the next is favorable at every step of the electron transport chain, thus every subsequent carrier has a higher reduction potential than the last. This favorable passage of electrons works to create the concentration gradient of hydronium ions on either side of the inner membrane of the mitochondria. Would it be possible to make the gradient so large that the passage of hydronium ions into the mitochondrial matrix from the intermembrane space outweighs the disfavorability of passing electrons back up the electron transport chain, to electron carriers with lower reduction potential? | [
-0.14684979617595673,
0.014567195437848568,
0.8418874144554138,
-0.6958385109901428,
-0.29439228773117065,
-0.41595837473869324,
-0.5770679116249084,
-1.117884635925293,
0.29789969325065613,
-0.6382386684417725,
0.8436509370803833,
0.8888669610023499,
-0.702777624130249,
0.2394669950008392... | |
33hp4a | Eridanus Supervoid, how is it that something that large can be completely empty? | Also, is it possible for galaxies to move inside the supervoid and fill it out? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cql9e27"
],
"text": [
"1. It's not completely empty. There's still stuff there, just a lot less than the average of the universe. One principle of cosmology is the idea that at very large distances, the universe \"looks the same\" in any direction. Imagine you have a jar. You carefully lay a layer of blue marbles on the bottom, then a layer of yellow on the blue, and white on the yellow. Now you shake the jar up. Things should get pretty mixed up. It's still *possible* to find areas in the jar where you have a bunch of blue marbles and nothing else, but it's just not very likely. This is something similar. It's odd to have a void that big, but not *impossible* based on our current models of how the universe came about.\n\n2. Yes, there is nothing technically preventing anything from filling that void, but since matter has gravity associated with it, it means things that are clumped together exert more gravity towards each other and that makes them clump even more. It's basically not likely that anything will ever fill that void."
],
"score": [
13
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Eridanus Supervoid, how is it that something that large can be completely empty?
Also, is it possible for galaxies to move inside the supervoid and fill it out? | [
-0.16596803069114685,
-0.7762519121170044,
1.2430528402328491,
-0.2227874994277954,
-0.857552170753479,
-0.8709313273429871,
-0.48965197801589966,
-0.4009106159210205,
-1.0256136655807495,
-0.05207721143960953,
0.7960611581802368,
0.6598609089851379,
-0.9383145570755005,
0.3859568536281585... | |
6gx3gd | Where exactly are the nodes of a free vibrating rod? | According to one [source](_URL_0_) the nodes of a vibrating rod are about 22% from either end.
Why "about 22%"? Unfortunately they don't give any explanation and I could only find calculations for rods that are fixed at one or both ends. I wonder: What is the exact number for a free vibrating rod and how can it be calculated? If the middle of the rod and both ends are antinodes (i.e. points with maximum displacement), shouldn't the nodes be *exactly* 25% from either end of the rod? Why is this not the case? What am I missing?
I am asking because I want to build wind chimes and need to find the right spot to suspend the tubes. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"diu2qzu"
],
"text": [
"The short answer is \"because transverse (bending) vibration modes are tricky\".\n\nThe behaviour of a vibrating string is similar to that of vibrating columns of air or longitudinal waves in solid materials. These waves are governed by:\n\nd^2 u / dt^2 = A d^2 u / dx^2\n\nWith longitudinal coordinate x, displacement u and time t, and a proportional coefficient A. Or, in words, the acceleration of a piece of the string is proportional with the local curvature. The solution to this equation yields nodes at \"nice\" locations.\n\nIn a bending mode not the local acceleration (restoring force), but the local restoring moment is proportional with curvature. The local restoring force is proportional proportional to the dx derivative of the restoring moment. Solving this fairly funky integral results in bending nodes at *approximately* 22% from the ends of a freely vibrating rod."
],
"score": [
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/rodvib.html"
]
} | {
"url": []
} | Where exactly are the nodes of a free vibrating rod?
According to one [source](_URL_0_) the nodes of a vibrating rod are about 22% from either end. Why "about 22%"? Unfortunately they don't give any explanation and I could only find calculations for rods that are fixed at one or both ends. I wonder: What is the exact number for a free vibrating rod and how can it be calculated? If the middle of the rod and both ends are antinodes (i.e. points with maximum displacement), shouldn't the nodes be *exactly* 25% from either end of the rod? Why is this not the case? What am I missing? I am asking because I want to build wind chimes and need to find the right spot to suspend the tubes. | [
-0.2396891564130783,
-0.8242652416229248,
1.0693695545196533,
0.936887800693512,
-0.9711295366287231,
-0.5652586221694946,
-0.02628767117857933,
-0.8383010029792786,
0.21856451034545898,
0.8040378093719482,
1.1725040674209595,
-0.09330914169549942,
-1.0401194095611572,
0.5810199975967407,
... | |
3np49w | Where is the mistake in this line of thinking? | This just occured to me:
Imagine an arbitrarily-sized cube of water placed next to a cube of metal of the same mass. Both cubes are 80 degrees C.
Water has a specific heat capacity of 4.18 J/gK. The metal, however, has a much lower specific heat capacity. This leads me to believe the water, being at the same temperature as the metal, possesses more thermal energy as it would take more energy to raise water's temperature from absolute zero to 80 degrees C, than it does the metal.
If the water possesses more energy, surely energy would be transfered from the water to the metal, leading to the metal having a higher temperature. I figure this happens due to the law of thermodynamics (energy moves from places of high concentration to low). Common sense dictates this doesn't happen.
Am I making a mistake somewhere? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cvqdqs3",
"cvqe4kz"
],
"text": [
"Your mistake is thinking that amount of energy (or energy density) is what determines energy flow, when really it is entropy that determines it. \n\nAs you know, heat will flow from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object. In an ideal gas, temperature is simply a function of energy density- the higher the average kinetic energy of the particles, the higher the temperature. But obviously, in water/metal this can't be the case- the water and metal have the same temperature, but different energy densities (the water is higher). So what is going on here?\n\nWell, the second law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system, entropy will stay the same or increase. And temperature is literally a measurement of \"how much entropy increases given an increase in energy.\" The physical definition of temperature is:\n\n > 1/T = dS/dE\n\nwhere T is temperature, S in entropy and E is energy. That is, a low temperature object will have a large increase in entropy with a small increase in energy, and a high temperature object is the opposite- a large increase in energy only leads to a small increase in entropy. \n\nThus, if two object are in thermal contact- energy (heat) will flow to increase entropy. Since the colder object will get a bigger increase of entropy from the added energy, heat flows from the warmer to the colder. In the case of water and metal being the same temperature, equal amounts of heat will flow in each direction since they are in an \"entropy balance\" they lose and gain the same amount of entropy per unit of energy gained or lost.",
"Your mistake is in thinking that energy has to go from high concentration to low. When two things have different temperatures and energy moves from the hot thing to the cold one, this is not because the hot thing has 'more energy', it is because the cold thing gets more entropy from the transferred energy than the hot thing loses. So to maximize entropy (as per the laws of thermodynamics) the hot gives energy to the cold."
],
"score": [
7,
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Where is the mistake in this line of thinking?
This just occured to me: Imagine an arbitrarily-sized cube of water placed next to a cube of metal of the same mass. Both cubes are 80 degrees C. Water has a specific heat capacity of 4.18 J/gK. The metal, however, has a much lower specific heat capacity. This leads me to believe the water, being at the same temperature as the metal, possesses more thermal energy as it would take more energy to raise water's temperature from absolute zero to 80 degrees C, than it does the metal. If the water possesses more energy, surely energy would be transfered from the water to the metal, leading to the metal having a higher temperature. I figure this happens due to the law of thermodynamics (energy moves from places of high concentration to low). Common sense dictates this doesn't happen. Am I making a mistake somewhere? | [
-0.45736163854599,
-0.5555545687675476,
0.9205977320671082,
0.09912071377038956,
-0.4429935812950134,
-0.24498164653778076,
-0.32252851128578186,
-1.2705482244491577,
0.39317768812179565,
-0.34623581171035767,
0.958540141582489,
0.6654700040817261,
-1.3619093894958496,
0.2809959650039673,
... | |
8aljix | Is There a GR Equivalent of the Light Clock? What About an SR Equivalent for Lorentz Contraction? | So the light clock, two mirrors spaced apart at a certain distance with a pulse of light bouncing between them, is an elegant way to describe time dilation: If the speed of light is constant in all reference frames one can clearly see that the pulse of light that takes 1 second to bounce between two mirrors 1 light-second apart now takes longer, by a factor of 1/√( 1 - v^2 / c^2 ).
Is there an equivalent thought experiment for Lorentz contraction? What about light deflection by gravity? What about other phenomena of GR? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"dx1jdss"
],
"text": [
"You can rotate the clock by 90 degrees (now going forward/backward) and derive length contraction.\n\nGravitational time dilation can be derived by looking at repeated pair production and radiation going up/down in gravitational fields. Start with an electron/positron pair at height h. Send it down (gaining energy), annihilate it, send the radiation up again, use it to create an electron/positron pair again. To conserve overall energy the radiation must lose energy on the way up - its frequency must go down.\n\nI'm not aware of nice thought experiments for light deflection."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Is There a GR Equivalent of the Light Clock? What About an SR Equivalent for Lorentz Contraction?
So the light clock, two mirrors spaced apart at a certain distance with a pulse of light bouncing between them, is an elegant way to describe time dilation: If the speed of light is constant in all reference frames one can clearly see that the pulse of light that takes 1 second to bounce between two mirrors 1 light-second apart now takes longer, by a factor of 1/√( 1 - v^2 / c^2 ). Is there an equivalent thought experiment for Lorentz contraction? What about light deflection by gravity? What about other phenomena of GR? | [
-0.29439136385917664,
-0.5392829179763794,
1.431473731994629,
-0.1364956796169281,
-0.6646215915679932,
-0.4646294116973877,
-0.5463894605636597,
-0.7439009547233582,
0.3007436692714691,
-0.804792046546936,
1.3350639343261719,
0.8982272744178772,
-0.9399965405464172,
-0.08408975601196289,
... | |
jgqr3 | We need help with a mathematical problem | Okay, five friends and I were on a bus ride to southern France, when the person seated next to me was bored. So was I, thus we decided to play a game of cards. It is basically the most simple card game ever, with few rules. At home (the Netherlands) it is known as 'Higher-Lower' or 'War'.
The rules are:
* There are two players
* The deck of 52 cards is divided into two decks of cards, 26 each. The cards that are in the two decks are completely randomly placed.
* Each player takes the card that is on the top of their own deck. Both decks are closed, so we can't see what card we're going to show. Of course, you're not even allowed to see your own cards, neither your opponent's.
* If your card has a higher value than your opponent's card, you win. For example: if my card is an Ace, and my opponent has a King, both cards are mine, and you must put them downwards in your deck, at the bottom.
Sounds like a boring game eh? It is. But is is perfect to eliminate 20 hours of waiting. There are some other rules:
* A deck of cards in Holland consists of 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Jack Queen King Ace, of course with four suits, spades, hearts, clubs and diamonds. In case both players show the same card, for example if I show the 4 of diamonds, and my opponent shows the 4 of spades, something special happens. We both lay down three cards, so there is a total of 8 cards on the table (4 of diamonds, 4 of spades, my three cards, and his three cards), and we both show another card. If one of these two cards has a higher value than the other, that one wins the whole deck.
* A '2' eliminates an Ace, King, Queen and Jack. Otherwise, the Ace has no enemies and the game would go on forever to eternity. The King, Queen and Jack are added to the victims of '2', so the '2-cards' becomes more dangerous.
* Of course, one loses if he doesn't have any cards left.
So, that's basically it. But the problem we have stumbled upon is the probability. There is a chance one game of 'Higher-Lower' has a duration of three years. On the other hand, theoretically, a game could last 26 moves. At first glance, the probability (sorry for my English, mathematical terms are not easy to translate...) seems to be some kind of standard-deviation... However this brings some requirements. Where is the optimum? We've played the game a couple of times, and usually the game last an hour. Why is this? Could one of you guys explain this to us?
We're lost.
If you need any other information, or clarification of the rules, please ask.
| askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c2bzup6",
"c2c0gn6",
"c2c1mhs",
"c2byahi"
],
"text": [
"Actually calculating the chances are much harder than running simulations on a computer program, which has been done. If you're fine with just empirical evidence than the link below should be satisfactory.\n\n[War Statistics](_URL_0_)",
"A computer simulation is the best thing you're likely to get here. Working out the theoretical probability would break off into hundreds of cases and quickly become overwhelming. \n\nIt wouldn't be quite so bad if the cards you were pulling out were random, but the fact that the cards will start repeating, and you'll have pairs of high cards and low cards next to each other makes this problem pretty intractable.",
"Theoretically speaking, the shortest game would last four turns (depending on the rules).\n\nFirst turn, you both flip the same card. You lay out three cards as a bet (a total of four from each of you), then flip again to see who gets to keep those cards.\n\nOn the first reflip, you both get the same card again. You lay out three cards as a bet (a total of eight from each of you), then flip to see who gets to keep those cards.\n\n...\n\nOn the reflip, you win, and take all the cards (49 from each of you). You now have 101 cards in your deck, and your opponent has 3. You spend the next three turns winning all those matches. **The odds of this sequence of events happening is less than 1/23 trillion**.\n\nIf you're playing that a person who runs out of cards loses (as opposed to a person with no cards at all) then you can win on the second turn instead by having a flip-off which your opponent doesn't have enough cards for.",
"I really, really need to see the answer to this question."
],
"score": [
7,
4,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_%28card_game%29#Statistics"
]
} | We need help with a mathematical problem
Okay, five friends and I were on a bus ride to southern France, when the person seated next to me was bored. So was I, thus we decided to play a game of cards. It is basically the most simple card game ever, with few rules. At home (the Netherlands) it is known as 'Higher-Lower' or 'War'. The rules are: * There are two players * The deck of 52 cards is divided into two decks of cards, 26 each. The cards that are in the two decks are completely randomly placed. * Each player takes the card that is on the top of their own deck. Both decks are closed, so we can't see what card we're going to show. Of course, you're not even allowed to see your own cards, neither your opponent's. * If your card has a higher value than your opponent's card, you win. For example: if my card is an Ace, and my opponent has a King, both cards are mine, and you must put them downwards in your deck, at the bottom. Sounds like a boring game eh? It is. But is is perfect to eliminate 20 hours of waiting. There are some other rules: * A deck of cards in Holland consists of 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Jack Queen King Ace, of course with four suits, spades, hearts, clubs and diamonds. In case both players show the same card, for example if I show the 4 of diamonds, and my opponent shows the 4 of spades, something special happens. We both lay down three cards, so there is a total of 8 cards on the table (4 of diamonds, 4 of spades, my three cards, and his three cards), and we both show another card. If one of these two cards has a higher value than the other, that one wins the whole deck. * A '2' eliminates an Ace, King, Queen and Jack. Otherwise, the Ace has no enemies and the game would go on forever to eternity. The King, Queen and Jack are added to the victims of '2', so the '2-cards' becomes more dangerous. * Of course, one loses if he doesn't have any cards left. So, that's basically it. But the problem we have stumbled upon is the probability. There is a chance one game of 'Higher-Lower' has a duration of three years. On the other hand, theoretically, a game could last 26 moves. At first glance, the probability (sorry for my English, mathematical terms are not easy to translate...) seems to be some kind of standard-deviation... However this brings some requirements. Where is the optimum? We've played the game a couple of times, and usually the game last an hour. Why is this? Could one of you guys explain this to us? We're lost. If you need any other information, or clarification of the rules, please ask. | [
-0.18725591897964478,
-1.0362000465393066,
0.14142614603042603,
0.2940111756324768,
-0.7652785778045654,
-0.4107798933982849,
-0.6020499467849731,
-0.4048628807067871,
0.8597332239151001,
0.5418192744255066,
1.041609764099121,
0.5520082116127014,
-0.07524213939905167,
0.4711284637451172,
... | |
zb5uu | What are some interesting evolutionary reasons for common bodily functions/reactions? | I'm interested in more in-depth and lesser known things than having the urge to urinate or defecate due to the fight or flight response, or getting goosebumps when creeped out or cold to make ourselves appear bigger or trap heat near the skin, respectively.
I mean stuff like the 'lump' in our throat when we get sad or anxious as a means to prepare the body to accept an increased level of oxygen intake, and that sort of thing. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but this sort of thing fascinates me. If anybody has a website where one can read about these sorts of things, I'd be much appreciative.
Thanks! | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c631tvy"
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure if this meets your \"less known\" criterion, but I've always found the evolutionary explanation for the [disgust](_URL_0_) expression to be quite interesting. Essentially the idea is that the typical reaction limits the exposure of our vulnerable mucus membranes to potential chemical or biological agents. Over time, however, this behavior seems to have generalized to moral/social disgust. Interestingly the fear expression, which is the opposite of the disgust expression in terms of motor movements, may also serve an evolutionary purpose: to enhance our field of vision (wide-eyes) and ability to inhale (open nose)."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgust#Evolutionary_significance"
]
} | What are some interesting evolutionary reasons for common bodily functions/reactions?
I'm interested in more in-depth and lesser known things than having the urge to urinate or defecate due to the fight or flight response, or getting goosebumps when creeped out or cold to make ourselves appear bigger or trap heat near the skin, respectively. I mean stuff like the 'lump' in our throat when we get sad or anxious as a means to prepare the body to accept an increased level of oxygen intake, and that sort of thing. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but this sort of thing fascinates me. If anybody has a website where one can read about these sorts of things, I'd be much appreciative. Thanks! | [
-0.07787775993347168,
-0.3098236322402954,
0.8251814246177673,
-0.6380495429039001,
-1.010912299156189,
-0.412934273481369,
0.20793530344963074,
-0.9394658207893372,
0.2526681125164032,
0.20023149251937866,
0.9903078079223633,
0.22887668013572693,
-1.171237826347351,
0.4851114749908447,
... | |
p5ujj | How much damage does a lye burn actually cause? | I was watching Fight Club recently with my father and during the part where the narrator's hand is burned with lye my father said that since the lye was left on for such a long time it would have caused much greater damage to his hand, burning through bones, tendons, etc. Is what the movie displays any where near factual? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c3msoge"
],
"text": [
"Very few things can burn through tendons and bones in that period of time."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | How much damage does a lye burn actually cause?
I was watching Fight Club recently with my father and during the part where the narrator's hand is burned with lye my father said that since the lye was left on for such a long time it would have caused much greater damage to his hand, burning through bones, tendons, etc. Is what the movie displays any where near factual? | [
0.5664903521537781,
-0.7536530494689941,
0.1749676913022995,
-0.9270453453063965,
-0.32755640149116516,
-0.35949933528900146,
-0.4776388108730316,
-0.5611209273338318,
0.577114462852478,
0.20463302731513977,
1.002642035484314,
0.3194531202316284,
-0.30911850929260254,
1.3931360244750977,
... | |
qmh2q | Sound and acoustics question | How is sound "made" from two different objects hitting each other? I.e. dropping a glass on the floor will result in a loud crash. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c3yqec8"
],
"text": [
"When an object hits another, there is a shock wave traveling through the objects, causing a vibration. That shock wave will displace the air on the surface of the object, creating sound waves."
],
"score": [
4
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Sound and acoustics question
How is sound "made" from two different objects hitting each other? I.e. dropping a glass on the floor will result in a loud crash. | [
0.5288195610046387,
-0.538898229598999,
0.4283032715320587,
-0.2730461061000824,
-0.3341750502586365,
-0.19621749222278595,
0.23357288539409637,
-0.6688122153282166,
0.23805779218673706,
0.20764389634132385,
0.5605852007865906,
0.8809033632278442,
-0.37196487188339233,
0.38730719685554504,... | |
7x0qdx | What is the social behavior of tardigrades? Do and if so, how do tardigrades interact with one another? | Googling doesn't answer that question and the literature on Google Scholar and pubmed is too high of a threshold to dig through for me as a layperson. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"du4ui3p",
"du51b1a"
],
"text": [
"There are multiple species of tardigrade. Some are hermaphrodite, many are predominantly female. It appears that they are mostly solitary, with no real evidence of social behavior aside from mating. Many reproduce parthenogenically.\n\n\"Normally the individuals do live separately. They crawl on the vegetable underground with no apparent relation to each other.\nNone of their movements can be interpretated as social recognizing or some kind of social interaction.\nBut from time to time this indifferent behaviour changes, in particular but not only when the females undergo a moulting process and when eggs are existing in the ovary.\nUnder those circumstances it was not rare to find a male close to a female. When the male was separated from the female for about the distance of a body length by means of a needle the male tried to come closer to the female again. The male crawled around the female in a circular pathway whereas the female didn't move much. Finally the male climbed on the back of the female and touched its head with its mouth. The partners remained in this position for some time. So we can suspect that the buccal gland might have functions that are not known yet...it must be assumed that mating was performed in this position.\"\n\n\nHermann Baumann: Der Lebenslauf von Hypsibius (H.) convergens Urbanowicz (Tardigrada). Zoologischer Anzeiger 167 (1961) p. 362 - 381.\n\nFound on [this site](_URL_0_)",
"These types of questions frustrate me in the best way. As soon as science realized tardigrades’ extremophile properties all of the basic research and ecological studies that come with studying a species were overlooked. It’s not as flashy to study tardigrades as a pioneer species as it is to be the guy who crack the code on their DNA. \n\nFor most other animals we would have detailed info to answer your question, especially for a creature found all over the planet, less so but still for the microscopic organisms as well.\n\nFrom every study I’m aware of they don’t communicate or work together past mating (which can last hours). That’s also pretty useful for a pioneer species like tardigrades because they are independent. \n\nI’m not an expert but have been involved in basic research and ecological studies on tardigrades recently."
],
"score": [
1841,
201
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.baertierchen.de/wb_dez03.html"
]
} | What is the social behavior of tardigrades? Do and if so, how do tardigrades interact with one another?
Googling doesn't answer that question and the literature on Google Scholar and pubmed is too high of a threshold to dig through for me as a layperson. | [
-0.26209089159965515,
-0.0723198801279068,
0.2418893426656723,
-0.027056202292442322,
-0.7977147102355957,
0.13464419543743134,
-0.041083019226789474,
-0.7117608785629272,
0.5621897578239441,
0.7155743837356567,
0.8004627227783203,
0.19714345037937164,
-0.6433143615722656,
0.89300221204757... | |
ycddr | My dad and I found these amazing mushrooms near my house. Can anyone identify them? | [here](_URL_0_) These popped up over a few days and then were gone. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c5ui7e3"
],
"text": [
"I agree with Wingfinger.\n\nI would also suggest that you give some information about where you are (at elast what country/region).\n\nUnfortunately, without a picture of gills (the underside of the cap), a definitive identification may be difficult if not impossible. From the top it looks like a field mushroom. There's several similar poisonous varieties though, usually identified by gill colour and bruising behaviour."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://imgur.com/a/3wexh"
]
} | {
"url": []
} | My dad and I found these amazing mushrooms near my house. Can anyone identify them?
[here](_URL_0_) These popped up over a few days and then were gone. | [
-0.2205340564250946,
-0.23231492936611176,
0.49694544076919556,
-0.7411581873893738,
-0.05650725215673447,
-0.5189809799194336,
-0.12215548753738403,
0.06464431434869766,
-0.0057511101476848125,
0.1227477490901947,
0.7969655394554138,
0.6112270951271057,
-0.01222681999206543,
1.50205338001... | |
12a08v | Life-coaching. Is this a real field with science behind it or is it simply a rebranding of psychology. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c6tg8qb",
"c6tgibj"
],
"text": [
"At least in the US, psychologists are certified by the state they are in, regulated by the APA and have either a masters or doctorate in psychology from an accredited university. They are qualified to treat mental illnesses and legally provide counselling services. Anyone, and I mean everyone, can become a life coach as it is an entirely unregulated non-medical field (akin to being a soccer coach). However they aren't allowed to treat mental illnesses or offer counselling like a licensed psychologist is. They're just advice givers, a walking talking self-help book.",
"A life coach is essentially somebody who wants to do low intensity counselling but without having to bother with the training."
],
"score": [
4,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Life-coaching. Is this a real field with science behind it or is it simply a rebranding of psychology.
| [
-0.8470581769943237,
-0.2041972577571869,
1.1493009328842163,
-1.4060419797897339,
-0.224315345287323,
-1.2304508686065674,
1.0227433443069458,
-0.708179235458374,
0.16534104943275452,
0.12100057303905487,
1.2302168607711792,
0.13222889602184296,
-0.8154820799827576,
0.27883318066596985,
... | ||
kviwf | Why does the "egg trick" work? | [Video](_URL_0_) of said trick.
The standard "oxygen is all used up" that I've always heard doesn't do it for me. Combustion of hydrocarbons:
Hydrocarbon + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O + energy
So we have two moles of O2 going in, with one mole of carbon dioxide and 2 moles of water vapor coming out. At the temperature the combustion occurs at the H2O is a gas, so you end up with 3 moles of gas produced for every 2 moles of gas reacted.
Is the pressure difference caused by H2O having a much lower vapor pressure than O2? In other words even at relatively high temperatures some of the H2O (more than half?) will be condensed? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c2nkaav"
],
"text": [
"You're overthinking this. Fire is hot, it causes gas to expand. The gasses in the immediate area of the flame are several hundred degrees, they're much less dense than the surrounding atmosphere. After the fire goes out, the heat dissipates (mostly via IR radiation), the pressure drops."
],
"score": [
7
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXiGnNMEgJs"
]
} | {
"url": []
} | Why does the "egg trick" work?
[Video](_URL_0_) of said trick. The standard "oxygen is all used up" that I've always heard doesn't do it for me. Combustion of hydrocarbons: Hydrocarbon + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O + energy So we have two moles of O2 going in, with one mole of carbon dioxide and 2 moles of water vapor coming out. At the temperature the combustion occurs at the H2O is a gas, so you end up with 3 moles of gas produced for every 2 moles of gas reacted. Is the pressure difference caused by H2O having a much lower vapor pressure than O2? In other words even at relatively high temperatures some of the H2O (more than half?) will be condensed? | [
0.17319199442863464,
-0.5607798099517822,
0.4467809796333313,
0.02975667268037796,
-0.4717504382133484,
-0.740274965763092,
-0.3171807527542114,
-0.7567641139030457,
1.4890426397323608,
0.4595157504081726,
0.8132431507110596,
0.6360588073730469,
-0.9971874952316284,
-0.12455026805400848,
... | |
toba5 | Isn't it more efficient to run with our arms down? | I understand our ancestors and evolution means we move all our limbs when we run. But wouldn't it save energy to run without swinging our arms or atleast not move them as much? I recall a female Chinese marathon runner in the olympics who did this and wondered why more people don't do this, especially in marathons. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c4ob7gi"
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nThe arms move in order to compensate for the motion of your legs. The best form for running suggests swing your arms as parallel to your body as possible so that you cam maintain the forward momentum and no energy is wasted through side-to-side motion."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running#Upper_body_motion"
]
} | Isn't it more efficient to run with our arms down?
I understand our ancestors and evolution means we move all our limbs when we run. But wouldn't it save energy to run without swinging our arms or atleast not move them as much? I recall a female Chinese marathon runner in the olympics who did this and wondered why more people don't do this, especially in marathons. | [
-0.283836305141449,
-0.01067333947867155,
0.7196578979492188,
-0.3147820234298706,
-0.6528769135475159,
-0.36910754442214966,
-0.3016718029975891,
-0.8153300285339355,
0.8936216235160828,
0.8580861687660217,
1.0480951070785522,
0.43700748682022095,
-0.34052160382270813,
0.4090604782104492,... | |
o883m | Is it alright to run in -10 degree weather? | Canadian here, -10 celsius and lower.
How do I do this without hurting myself at all? I don't mean the ice, I mean the cold air in my lungs when I breathe, how do I get over that? Is running in the cold actually OK for you, or is it bad to do for your body and health? How would I go about preventing harm to myself if I want to run in the cold weather? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c3f6351",
"c3f6ng2",
"c3f6idq",
"c3f64wi"
],
"text": [
"The cold air will not affect your lungs, the air should sufficiently be warmed by the time it reaches them. You'll want to protect yourself against frostbite, as always, but make sure that your protective clothing breathes to prevent overheating. Exercising in the cold won't hurt you anymore than simply being out in the cold for prolonged periods, so plan accordingly.\nSource: Exercise Science Major",
"You should be fine to run in that sort of temperature. Your body will use slightly more calories as it works to warm the air you breathe and regulate your skin temperature, but it's only about 15% overall.\n\nYou'll know that mountaineers and arctic explorers exercise very hard in extremely cold conditions, but don't be fooled by the huge insulated down suits they wear. They put all that on for several reasons:\n\nFirstly, they often have to stop for long periods in between exercising. Climbers can be standing on a foot wide ledge for hours at a time in crippling cold. They basically have a choice: wear enough to be warm on the ledge - in which case they cook when they move - or wear little enough to be comfortable when climbing, in which case they freeze when they stop.\n\nThe other reason they wear all that is that they're often operating at high or extreme altitude. The low oxygen and partial pressure hugely exacerbates the effects of the cold, leading to much higher risk of frostbite and a much more intense sensation of cold.\n\nSo: as long as you're not planning to stop in the open and you're not doing it at iver 5000 meters or so of altitude, yiu're should be fine. In fact, there's evidence to suggest that exercising in the cold can provide a welcome boost to immune function.",
"The only thing I would say about winter running, apart from the ice, is having to run on the road. For two reasons, one is the traffic in that it takes longer to stop in snow and ice conditions, and secondly, the exhaust from the gasoline engines. Is there a plowed gravel road you could run on nearby?",
"Yes, it's completely safe. Speaking from experience, cold air (-20 C and lower) is very invigorating."
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Is it alright to run in -10 degree weather?
Canadian here, -10 celsius and lower. How do I do this without hurting myself at all? I don't mean the ice, I mean the cold air in my lungs when I breathe, how do I get over that? Is running in the cold actually OK for you, or is it bad to do for your body and health? How would I go about preventing harm to myself if I want to run in the cold weather? | [
-0.4910828769207001,
-0.12793870270252228,
0.3909241259098053,
-0.09612689912319183,
0.12953804433345795,
-0.48335832357406616,
-0.020274590700864792,
-0.5515666604042053,
1.2753539085388184,
0.22798380255699158,
0.9058630466461182,
-0.08406919986009598,
-1.2143211364746094,
-0.31468746066... | |
17l49i | I live at high altitude (2600m); are there any cool experiments or effects I can observe or try out? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c86ke0x"
],
"text": [
"Train your cardio. Go visit some friends at sea level and impress them with your infinite stamina. (The science: Living that high causes you to make more red blood cells to carry more O2 since you get less O2 on each breath, so going back to sea level you have an impressive O2 capacity advantage. That's why olympians train in the mountains)."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | I live at high altitude (2600m); are there any cool experiments or effects I can observe or try out?
| [
0.05190223082900047,
-0.20643498003482819,
1.3271254301071167,
-0.15370893478393555,
-0.507885754108429,
-1.1136343479156494,
0.5273852944374084,
-0.46059557795524597,
0.7260317206382751,
0.13681526482105255,
0.5691207647323608,
0.2101142853498459,
0.37064069509506226,
0.36091530323028564,... | ||
1cpc92 | What could be the estimated economic cost / impact of events in Boston? | Some points that come to mind:
- Injuries / deaths
- Infrastructure damage
- Cost of the manhunt
- City lockdown and lost productivity
I understand that lives are much more important than anything else but just wanted to get a bigger picture.
Thanks.
| askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c9iq3ih"
],
"text": [
"Most of the economic harm is probably going to be to the individuals that are going to be left with disabling injuries. Honestly, the destruction and damage was pretty minor compared to the fertilizer plant explosion which happened in Texas the a few days after."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | What could be the estimated economic cost / impact of events in Boston?
Some points that come to mind: - Injuries / deaths - Infrastructure damage - Cost of the manhunt - City lockdown and lost productivity I understand that lives are much more important than anything else but just wanted to get a bigger picture. Thanks. | [
-0.29525026679039,
-0.2539660632610321,
0.3001253604888916,
-1.789191722869873,
-0.6049924492835999,
-0.2233583778142929,
-0.1808203160762787,
-1.0330790281295776,
-0.29371681809425354,
-0.14705640077590942,
0.9297304153442383,
0.16778865456581116,
-1.1673367023468018,
0.275084525346756,
... | |
93zkov | Do Platypuses or any other monotremes experience flatulence? | Do Platypuses or Ecidnas fart? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"e3lummj"
],
"text": [
"I don't know, but you might be interested in [this book](_URL_0_)! ;)"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://www.amazon.ca/Does-Fart-Definitive-Animal-Flatulence/dp/0316484156"
]
} | Do Platypuses or any other monotremes experience flatulence?
Do Platypuses or Ecidnas fart? | [
-0.4740584194660187,
-0.48641541600227356,
0.5154072642326355,
0.0847267210483551,
-0.7452443242073059,
0.24848724901676178,
0.025033364072442055,
-0.467669814825058,
-1.2307469844818115,
0.08890420943498611,
0.20837034285068512,
0.4032847285270691,
-1.1339677572250366,
0.04629481583833694... | |
13ud45 | I have a question about Pavlovian conditioning. | I am wondering what exactly would happen if you did this:
You create three tones. One the pitch of middle "C", The second an octave above middle "C", and the third an octave below middle "C".
Every single time you play the low pitch, you shock the dog. Every time you play the high octave, you feed the dog a treat. You do this until the dog is conditioned to salivate at the sound of the high tone, and jump/wimpier/shrivel at the sound of the low "C"
What would happen you play the center "C?" Anything? Why exactly? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c77el6q",
"c78xd9f"
],
"text": [
"It could get generalized to either of the two responses. It is more likely that it will not bring forth any response, though that may depend on how the middle C functioned during the conditioning process. If there was no stimulous matched with it then there would be no reason for the dog to expect anything.\n\nI dont know how sound is percieved by dogs, but for humans we can hear multiple distinct sounds at once. So what would be interesting is to sound both high and low Cs at once and see how the dog reacts.",
"I think that a big indicator to how the dog would respond would be which tone was played BEFORE you give them the middle \"C\" tone. It may be the case that a dog can, with great accuracy, distinguish the three tones as separate stimuli. However, it also may be the case that the dog is responding to \"higher tone than before\". If you were to play the low tone and give them the middle tone, they may salivate because the tone is higher in reference to the low tone. Only one way to find out..."
],
"score": [
8,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | I have a question about Pavlovian conditioning.
I am wondering what exactly would happen if you did this: You create three tones. One the pitch of middle "C", The second an octave above middle "C", and the third an octave below middle "C". Every single time you play the low pitch, you shock the dog. Every time you play the high octave, you feed the dog a treat. You do this until the dog is conditioned to salivate at the sound of the high tone, and jump/wimpier/shrivel at the sound of the low "C" What would happen you play the center "C?" Anything? Why exactly? | [
-0.3813117742538452,
-0.36349645256996155,
0.3241201937198639,
-0.05008620768785477,
-0.3633831739425659,
0.329421728849411,
-0.09998470544815063,
-0.7484824657440186,
1.438858985900879,
0.5949945449829102,
0.4221062660217285,
0.7435802221298218,
-0.5648533701896667,
0.2653791308403015,
... | |
inrwo | For mathematical questions, /r/math is more than willing to help, and likely better suited. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c2583p3"
],
"text": [
"Does my question qualify for this? I saw it as more a physics issue, but it is expressed mathematically:\n\n[My Question](_URL_0_)"
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/insd0/how_can_i_calculate_the_acceleration_of_a_vehicle/"
]
} | For mathematical questions, /r/math is more than willing to help, and likely better suited.
| [
-1.0930818319320679,
-0.4003258943557739,
0.577130913734436,
0.4579404592514038,
-0.829642653465271,
-0.4456538259983063,
0.00809344369918108,
-1.0628849267959595,
0.8756277561187744,
-0.794451117515564,
0.322781503200531,
0.10875814408063889,
0.041891273111104965,
-0.3240283727645874,
0... | ||
njiaw | Why is it called the Schroedinger wave equation instead of the Schroedinger diffusion equation? | In order to be an actual wave equation, doesn't it have to be second order in both the time and spatial variables? The Schroedinger equation is second order only in the spatial variables while it is first order in the time variable, so wouldn't that make it a diffusion equation, and not a wave equation?
Unless I am missing something extremely obvious, it seems that the foundational equation in quantum theory is incorrectly named? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c39lvc2"
],
"text": [
"The Schrodinger equation is a diffusion equation (first derivative in time prop to second derivative in position), but don't worry the Dirac equation is really a wave equation. \n\nI've heard this complaint before; but I can't ever recall hearing it be called the Schrodinger wave equation. It's always called just the Schrodinger equation. \n\nNow you do call \\psi wavefunctions/wavepackets, etc, not because its a wave equation, but because what you are describing has wave-like properties as opposed to particle-like properties; e.g., waves can interfere with themselves; particles can't."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Why is it called the Schroedinger wave equation instead of the Schroedinger diffusion equation?
In order to be an actual wave equation, doesn't it have to be second order in both the time and spatial variables? The Schroedinger equation is second order only in the spatial variables while it is first order in the time variable, so wouldn't that make it a diffusion equation, and not a wave equation? Unless I am missing something extremely obvious, it seems that the foundational equation in quantum theory is incorrectly named? | [
-0.579938530921936,
-0.5411747097969055,
0.5442405939102173,
0.0945102795958519,
-0.815686821937561,
-0.6185742616653442,
0.5530685186386108,
-0.8606993556022644,
0.3457852900028229,
0.12842659652233124,
1.0954917669296265,
0.28921037912368774,
-0.9988844990730286,
0.09560824185609818,
0... | |
rhmnh | Is it possible to create an "icethrower"? (Like a flamethrower but cold) Or are powers like that of Iceman impossible? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c45vxte",
"c45vr3a"
],
"text": [
"As opposed to heating radiation (infrared, for example) you cannot emit cooling radiation, which means that the only way to cool something is to throw a cold substance at it -- preferably one that goes through a phase change like liquid nitrogen or \"dry ice\" (frozen carbon dioxide) -- or to encase it in/surround it with an environment of low temperature (like a freezer).\n\nThe biggest problem is to keep whatever cooling substance you throw from absorbing too much heat before reaching its target. And the amount of cooling substance would be considerable too for anything bar the smallest objects.\n\nSo, no Iceman I'm afraid.",
"Well, sure. I mean, the basic principles of a flamethrower isn't that you're shooting 'heat', it's that you're firing flammable fluid that's ignited as it exits the weapon. Similarly, you could construct a weapon that fires a particulated cold substance, like liquid nitrogen or what have you. The problem, of course, being that most substances of that sort are going to rapidly vaporize or sublimate upon hitting air, particularly when rendered into a form that has a lot of surface area.\n\nI don't know enough about cold substances to suggest something that would work better, though."
],
"score": [
13,
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Is it possible to create an "icethrower"? (Like a flamethrower but cold) Or are powers like that of Iceman impossible?
| [
-0.7501075863838196,
-0.41527605056762695,
0.5441551804542542,
-0.2882464826107025,
-0.3073246479034424,
-0.797710657119751,
0.32194408774375916,
-0.4342878758907318,
0.9831948280334473,
0.08018721640110016,
0.8267829418182373,
-0.428169846534729,
-1.1046658754348755,
-0.1663331687450409,
... | ||
n8kpd | How would a scientific lab break Doritos down into its component parts? | I'm thinking about reverse-engineering Doritos. How would a trained scientist go about it?
As a layman, I thought I would start by shaking the powder off the chips into a bottle, and then I could use a series of fine meshes to separate out larger particles.
There have to be more sophisticated methods. I bet there's lab equipment for just this sort of purpose.
I bet trained scientists could even pulverize the chips and determine their exact composition. They could break the chips into flavor powder (broken down by ingredient) and chips (also broken down) and collect the component materials in bottles, even identify suppliers. They could even determine the exact preparation methods.
How would you do it? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c375bl9",
"c376cab"
],
"text": [
"You can first do a physical separation, as you proposed.\n\nI think I would use a suitable solvent - or a group of suitable solvents, and blend the chips to a mush. Then one can do separation on the compounds via a number of chromatography techniques before throwing it into a mass spectrometer.\n\nHowever, this can give you information on what's in it, but not really how it is prepared. That's really the most difficult part.",
"As rupert1920 said your best bet would be to grind up some chips and then separate the Dorito into components that are soluble in solvents of different polarities (i.e. water soluble vs soluble in ethanol vs soluble in heptane etc).\n\nThen you could use chromatography techniques like [HPLC](_URL_3_) or [TLC](_URL_2_) to separate the mixture into individual components and then try to identify each individual component via something like [mass spec](_URL_1_) or [IR spectroscopy](_URL_0_)."
],
"score": [
3,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometry",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_layer_chromatography",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-performance_liquid_chromatography"
]
} | How would a scientific lab break Doritos down into its component parts?
I'm thinking about reverse-engineering Doritos. How would a trained scientist go about it? As a layman, I thought I would start by shaking the powder off the chips into a bottle, and then I could use a series of fine meshes to separate out larger particles. There have to be more sophisticated methods. I bet there's lab equipment for just this sort of purpose. I bet trained scientists could even pulverize the chips and determine their exact composition. They could break the chips into flavor powder (broken down by ingredient) and chips (also broken down) and collect the component materials in bottles, even identify suppliers. They could even determine the exact preparation methods. How would you do it? | [
-0.23660984635353088,
-0.4414845108985901,
0.2077263444662094,
-0.19886714220046997,
-0.5317566394805908,
-0.41484636068344116,
0.043995458632707596,
-1.0844556093215942,
1.5763988494873047,
0.34584179520606995,
0.5869480967521667,
0.4446726143360138,
-0.6433572173118591,
0.509514868259429... | |
oiy2k | How close are we to having Star Trek like deflector shields? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c3ho7jf"
],
"text": [
"[Here](_URL_0_).\n\nSome of it seems rather recent. Apparently they came up with some sort of plasma bubble that protects the contents from radiation..."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_field#Scientific_research"
]
} | How close are we to having Star Trek like deflector shields?
| [
-0.21541643142700195,
-0.3021624982357025,
0.6393115520477295,
-0.9936828017234802,
-0.5176552534103394,
-0.9443181157112122,
-0.057138592004776,
-0.8514307737350464,
0.01221192441880703,
-0.08955816179513931,
0.9998232126235962,
0.8442047834396362,
-0.09267623722553253,
0.8084255456924438... | ||
x2ync | Found this "rock" 15 years ago, finally trying to figure out what it is. | I found this about 15 years ago (the 33 sticker is because this was the 33'rd unknown specimen from my collection). It was located on the shore of Lake Ontario near Selkirk Shores (Pulaski, NY).
The object itself weighs about 1.5lbs, is cloudy mostly but somewhat clear. It is full of air bubbles and one bubble shown even has liquid and air in it which act as a bubble as a level would. It has chips and rough edges but nothing sharp. The green spots on the one side were as I found it, I cannot tell if paint or algae stains.
[Video of the bubble moving and me holding it] (_URL_0_)
[Photo gallery] (_URL_1_)
It may be glass, but I can’t figure out why such a piece would exist full of air pockets.
What is it? Why would it be on a rocky beach? How did it get there?
And finally, what should I do with it (clean it up and polish it maybe?).
Thanks!
| askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c5ippra",
"c5iuvec",
"c5ipqd7"
],
"text": [
"It's glass. GIS for Conchoidal fracture or slag glass rock. Possibly from a glass factory (slag).",
"This is most likely a glass slag sample that was dropped in water and cooled very quickly. This would explain the fluid inclusions (most fluid inclusions in quartz are not visible to the naked eye, thus leading me to believe these inclusions are not natural in origin), and the conchoidal fractures.",
"The bubble with liquid and gas isn't unheard of in quartz, specimens with liquid inclusions are called \"enhydro quartz\", and such inclusions are seen in other minerals too- three phase inclusions are common in natural emeralds, not in synthetic emerals.\n\nQuartz has a conchoidial fracture pattern like glass. Have you tried testing the hardness to determine if it is softer than quartz, as common varieties of glass would be? It sure looks like glass slag, although I can't guess how liquid water would get into glass."
],
"score": [
12,
5,
3
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://youtu.be/YGyMjKl8ad4",
"http://imgur.com/a/PboM7/"
]
} | {
"url": []
} | Found this "rock" 15 years ago, finally trying to figure out what it is.
I found this about 15 years ago (the 33 sticker is because this was the 33'rd unknown specimen from my collection). It was located on the shore of Lake Ontario near Selkirk Shores (Pulaski, NY). The object itself weighs about 1.5lbs, is cloudy mostly but somewhat clear. It is full of air bubbles and one bubble shown even has liquid and air in it which act as a bubble as a level would. It has chips and rough edges but nothing sharp. The green spots on the one side were as I found it, I cannot tell if paint or algae stains. [Video of the bubble moving and me holding it] (_URL_0_) [Photo gallery] (_URL_1_) It may be glass, but I can’t figure out why such a piece would exist full of air pockets. What is it? Why would it be on a rocky beach? How did it get there? And finally, what should I do with it (clean it up and polish it maybe?). Thanks! | [
-0.5658381581306458,
-0.5171393752098083,
0.464313268661499,
-0.3881232440471649,
-0.02320946380496025,
-0.5788838267326355,
-0.22631128132343292,
-0.36280062794685364,
0.12417473644018173,
1.0584245920181274,
1.0174198150634766,
-0.09547759592533112,
-0.20477746427059174,
0.85251414775848... | |
lqb2w | What is our body's main functioning "radiator"? | So I understand that the main source of heat is just our general metabolism (glycolysis and all that good business), but when it comes to maintaining homeostasis is this just happening in all non-specialized cells? Is it happening mainly in fat storage? Forgive me if this is trivial but it's pretty damn cold here :P.
| askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c2ura4u",
"c2ur2s5",
"c2uvxwf",
"c2usi7m"
],
"text": [
"I always understood the liver as one of the main heat engines. I would also wager the stomach has a significant contribution. I'm sure you would know more than I what goes on in these organs. \n\n > As in other mammals, thermoregulation is an important aspect of human homeostasis. Most body heat is generated in the deep organs, especially the liver, brain, and heart, and in contraction of skeletal muscles.[7][not in citation given (See discussion.)]\n\n_URL_0_",
"Wouldn't it be the skin that dissipates most of the body's heat through evaporatioin?",
"I have a related question:\n\nMy girlfriend is always too cold. I'm always too warm. I'm fairly certain that half the reason she likes me so much is that I serve as \"her personal furnace.\"\n\nWhy is this? Even when it's freezing outside, a small amount of exertion will cause me to overheat (and I'm in shape, so it's not that). It makes me miserable in hot, muggy climates because I can never cool down.\n\nIs this just circulation? Do I just have \"efficient\" or \"hot\" circulation?",
"The actual mechanism in the cells is use of oxidizing substrates (NADH, FADH) across the inner mitochondrial membrane to create heat instead of a proton motive force. This process only occurs in in brown adipose (fat) tissue. In most other tissue types this process usually results in the creation of a proton gradient, which then drives ATP synthase to create ATP from ADP. ATP is the bodies main energy \"currency\".\n\nShivering is a whole different story, as noted on this wiki page:\n\n_URL_2_\n\nCrossed referenced with [this](_URL_2_)."
],
"score": [
7,
4,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoregulation",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=b7Dc9bOs9uAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22N.+V.+Bhagavan%22&hl=en&ei=k8qoTvrrMeneiAKumOS1Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=brown%20adipose%20tissue%20nonshivering%20thermogenesis%20heat%20mitochondrial&f=false",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogenesis#Non-shivering_thermogenesis"
]
} | What is our body's main functioning "radiator"?
So I understand that the main source of heat is just our general metabolism (glycolysis and all that good business), but when it comes to maintaining homeostasis is this just happening in all non-specialized cells? Is it happening mainly in fat storage? Forgive me if this is trivial but it's pretty damn cold here :P. | [
-0.418725848197937,
-0.7844803929328918,
0.5880833864212036,
0.10303957760334015,
-0.4635481536388397,
-1.1616209745407104,
-0.5271899104118347,
-0.640109121799469,
0.8254664540290833,
0.1331038624048233,
1.0871458053588867,
0.7141513824462891,
-0.7666367888450623,
0.16909916698932648,
-... | |
1mcnwc | What do all the little silver dots do on my computer's motherboard? | _URL_0_
I opened by laptop today to do "repairs" (replacing the fan) and I noticed all these little silver dots on the motherboard. I understand in concept what something like a processor does or what a video card does, but what, physically, are these little silver dots doing? Do they regulate electricity? Or direct something somewhere? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cc81cgq"
],
"text": [
"The circuit board for your computer consists of several layers, and those dots are where those layers interconnect. They are called vias, and Wikipedia has a [decent article about them](_URL_0_); particularly note the cross-section pictures and diagrams.\n\nEdit: fixed link"
],
"score": [
12
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://i.imgur.com/IQcOkJQ.jpg"
]
} | {
"url": [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_%28electronics%29"
]
} | What do all the little silver dots do on my computer's motherboard?
_URL_0_ I opened by laptop today to do "repairs" (replacing the fan) and I noticed all these little silver dots on the motherboard. I understand in concept what something like a processor does or what a video card does, but what, physically, are these little silver dots doing? Do they regulate electricity? Or direct something somewhere? | [
-0.6316232085227966,
-0.46675747632980347,
0.7938379049301147,
-0.30095604062080383,
-0.5382916927337646,
-0.4693358838558197,
-0.13685008883476257,
-0.298944354057312,
0.21726185083389282,
-0.38571804761886597,
0.9844778776168823,
0.03161260113120079,
-0.6056180000305176,
1.41013896465301... | |
tlze3 | Alien race arrives. Assuming we can provide them with sustenance, what resources/specialists would be needed to determine what they can consume? | I'm imagining an alien ship arriving with several of their species - very different from humans, but with understandable anatomy. They are made entirely of organic matter, have no food of their own for us to imitate, are willing to be examined (but likely not killed or dissected), cannot communicate with us in any helpful way other than by cooperating, and are not dangerous to us.
This makes a lot of assumptions, of course, but I'm mainly interested in how we would determine the diet of (and provide for) a completely foreign species. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c4nrypj"
],
"text": [
"First off: This scenario is highly improbable. A civilization capable of space flight is also quite capable of determining what they can and cannot eat. \n\nHowever, if this did happen and someone put me in charge of figuring out what our alien friends ate, I would perform an MRI, determine a likely candidate for a \"stomach\" type structure, and collect any chemicals/enzymes from this organ and test these on different basic types of foods (a few carbohydrate monomers etc.). If there was a relatively rapid reaction towards a specific foodstuff, that would probably be a good starting point. I might also rely on the fact that they would have evolved to prefer edible foods and avoid toxins (at least toxins native to their home world) and examine their response to smelling/sniffing/touching various food items. You could also perform a biopsy to obtain a tissue sample and examine it for the presence of fatty acids, proteins, carbohydrates, etc. that we are familiar with. The more similar their molecular composition is to our own, the more likely it is that our food would be edible to them, although I would be concerned about the possibility of accidentally poisoning them via some unknown metabolic pathway that converts glucose to a neurotoxin, or something."
],
"score": [
5
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Alien race arrives. Assuming we can provide them with sustenance, what resources/specialists would be needed to determine what they can consume?
I'm imagining an alien ship arriving with several of their species - very different from humans, but with understandable anatomy. They are made entirely of organic matter, have no food of their own for us to imitate, are willing to be examined (but likely not killed or dissected), cannot communicate with us in any helpful way other than by cooperating, and are not dangerous to us. This makes a lot of assumptions, of course, but I'm mainly interested in how we would determine the diet of (and provide for) a completely foreign species. | [
-0.5641486644744873,
-0.2783351540565491,
0.06681465357542038,
-0.09739680588245392,
-0.8696318864822388,
-0.27353549003601074,
-0.38144451379776,
-0.9195047616958618,
0.18043631315231323,
-0.036638252437114716,
0.830301821231842,
0.48743778467178345,
-1.2572920322418213,
0.711282849311828... | |
paauu | How does a successful advertising affect our brain? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c3ntmjl",
"c3ntzeg",
"c3ntv8r"
],
"text": [
"Geoffrey Miller:\n > From my perspective as an evolutionary psychologist, this is how consumerist capitalism really works: it makes us forget our natural adaptations for showing off desirable fitness-related traits. It deludes us into thinking that artificial products work much better than they really do for showing off these traits. It confuses us about the traits we are trying to display by harping on vague terms at the wrong levels of description (wealth, status, taste), and by obfuscating the most stable, heritable, and predictive traits discovered by individual differences research. It hints coyly at the possible status and sexual payoffs for buying and displaying premium products, but refuses to make such claims explicit, lest consumer watchdogs find those claims empirically false, and lest significant others get upset by the personal motives they reveal. The net result could be called the fundamental consumerist delusion -- that other people care more about the artificial products you display through consumerist spending than about the natural traits you display through normal conversation, cooperation, and cuddling.",
"At least in some cases, advertising plays on our natural perceptual abilities. For example, fast food restaurants will often use the color red in their advertisements, buildings, and packaging. This is because people seem to have a natural proclivity to the color red.\n\nNow, we know that newborns are better able to detect long wavelengths of light. (That is, their eyes linger longer on red objects than blue or green ones.) It is possible that we have inherent tendencies to certain perceptual effects, and advertisers just play off of this in marketing their products.",
"there's a really good PBS (i know) special on this called \"The Persuaders\" you might check it out. I think It's on there website"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | How does a successful advertising affect our brain?
| [
0.3306223154067993,
0.3098744750022888,
0.017198914662003517,
-0.3435358703136444,
-0.03157663717865944,
-0.18886293470859528,
1.027686595916748,
0.08278355002403259,
0.130994975566864,
-0.2859412431716919,
0.23168230056762695,
0.7070704698562622,
-0.3959652781486511,
-0.5283363461494446,
... | ||
140xm6 | Is there such a thing as an implosive chemical reaction? | One that happens quickly like the opposite of an explosion? | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c78wsce",
"c78wwso"
],
"text": [
"In general, any gas-phase reaction that reduces the number of molecules in the sample would be an implosion. Take hydrogen and oxygen, blended in a 2:1 mole ratio. Upon setting the mixture off, by for example a match, every two moles of hydrogen will react with one mole of oxygen to make two moles of water. Thus we would have three moles of reactants suddenly becoming two moles of products, an implosion.\n\nBut more than that, in the case of hydrogen and oxygen reacting to form water, the water thus produced happens to be in the liquid state, not the gaseous; so that practically the entire volume of mixed H2 and O2 gases would collapse to form a small amount of liquid spray, an implosion to be sure.",
"Chemicals that combine and release heat and gas will always create some sort of explosion.\n\nIf you combine napalm and oxygen, you're going to get a lot of CO*_2_* and possibly some H*_2_*0. Both of those compounds are gases at energies released by explosions. So the reaction takes in liquids/solids as an input, and produces gases as an output; hence why there is a sudden change in volume.\n\nNow you're asking if there are chemical reactions where the opposite happens quickly? I sincerely doubt it; CO*_2_* is a pretty stable gas, you would need to *add* energy to the system to turn it into a solid. If you have a lot of 2\\*H*_2_* gas and O*_2_* gas, it will react and produce 2\\*H*_2_*0, but the reaction will be so hot that it will produce steam instead of liquid water.\n\nThere is a technology called Fuel-Air Explosive Bombs, used by the military, that's designed to suffocate combatants and deprive them of oxygen once it explodes. But after doing some quick research, it appears that this is *not* accomplished with an implosion; this is accomplished with a long-duration *explosion* that keeps the air at low-enough pressure for long enough to deprive enemy combatants of oxygen.\n\nSo basically, I can't think of a single chemical reaction that would fit your description. I'm an electrical engineer who took a class on explosives a few years ago, so I'll wait and see if any chemists here are up to the challenge.\n\nEdit: Why aren't the subscripts working????"
],
"score": [
3,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | Is there such a thing as an implosive chemical reaction?
One that happens quickly like the opposite of an explosion? | [
-0.015912476927042007,
-1.1004074811935425,
0.29370996356010437,
-0.5912635922431946,
-0.14037379622459412,
-0.9434490203857422,
0.20312044024467468,
-0.3849053382873535,
0.6695983409881592,
0.5303674340248108,
0.9471485614776611,
0.31369173526763916,
-0.6741548180580139,
0.420868068933486... | |
13yn9f | How high would I have to climb to be able to see California from New York? | Let's pretend I'm free climbing up the space elevator. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c78cpl3",
"c78el6u"
],
"text": [
"d=1.22(sqrt(h)) is an approximation for heights significantly less than the radius of the earth. Unfortunately, 2,443.79 miles is not significantly less than 3,959 miles for Re in the mathematical approximation used for d=1.22(sqrt(h)).\n\nThe following works for all distances (S) up to S=Pi*Re/2:\nCOSINE(S/Re)=1/(1+h/Re) where (h) is the height above ground level and assumes you want to see ground level in California and where S/Re is the angle in radians (not degrees). This gives h=895.9 miles.\n\nWhat if you want to see the top of a building in CA from the top of an equally high building in NY? Each building would have to be just high enough to see the ground half way between them. That way a person on one would be just high enough to look over the ground halfway between them to see the other building. In this case, S=2,443.79(miles)/2 and the new h=196.3 miles for each building.\n\n(Edited to correct typo).",
"Assuming earth is a perfectly round sphere of radius 6378.1km (according to google) and the distance from New York City to LA (for example) is about 3940km, you would need to be at a height of 1445.96km to see LA from NYC. \n\nThese numbers aren't exact and the earth isn't perfectly round, but it gives you an idea of the kind of altitude you would need.\n\nFor comparison, the International Space Station orbits at an altitude of 370km, considerably lower than the altitude you'd need."
],
"score": [
2,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | How high would I have to climb to be able to see California from New York?
Let's pretend I'm free climbing up the space elevator. | [
-0.09322750568389893,
-0.18843626976013184,
0.2160455286502838,
-0.8050805926322937,
-0.24436621367931366,
-0.43752315640449524,
-0.27353957295417786,
-0.5906595587730408,
0.6073548197746277,
-0.36339259147644043,
0.8213279247283936,
0.7406877875328064,
-0.8353734612464905,
-0.031729768961... | |
3lo7at | Can you draw length "e" ? | I was reading transcendental numbers. Then i thought i can theoretically draw a perfect circle, cut it and get pi. But i couldn't think of a way to draw exact length of e. Is there a way ? Thanks in advance
| askscience | {
"a_id": [
"cv8j31x",
"cv8aluw"
],
"text": [
"Interesting challenge. Of course there's no hope of doing a classical compass and straightedge construction of a transcendental number. So the problem comes down to finding some easy visualization of a line segment of length e. \n\nHere is one idea. We know that log(a) is the area under the curve of 1/x from x = 1 to x = a. There's a picture of this here ... _URL_0_\n\nNow if the shaded area under the curve is exactly 1, then the right edge of the shaded area is exactly e. In other words we're visualizing log(e) = 1 as an area under 1/x. \n\nIf we rotated the picture counterclockwise a quarter turn, we could imagine a glass container with the line x = 1 at the bottom, the x-axis as the right side, the curve 1/x as the left side, and an opening at the top. If we pour in exactly 1 unit of liquid, the surface of the liquid will come up to exactly the height x = e. (Remembering that the bottom of the container is already at height x = 1).\n\nWell that's one idea, I'm sure there are others. I'm thinking there must be some clever construction of an arc that has length e, perhaps the arc length of some curve.",
"If we are talking about ruler-compass constructions, then we can't construct either pi or e. If you have a curve, there isn't a way to straighten it out. The Greeks actually said that curved lines had no length because the straightening process is doesn't really work, and only straight lines have length. The reason that we can't [Square the Circle](_URL_2_) is because we can't construct pi.\n\nWe can completely categorize all [Constructible Numbers](_URL_2_) and one thing that they need to be able to do is be a root to some polynomial with integer coefficients. Since pi and e are both transcendental, we can't construct them."
],
"score": [
15,
14
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_logarithm#Definitions",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructible_number"
]
} | Can you draw length "e" ?
I was reading transcendental numbers. Then i thought i can theoretically draw a perfect circle, cut it and get pi. But i couldn't think of a way to draw exact length of e. Is there a way ? Thanks in advance | [
-0.42790037393569946,
-0.4169239103794098,
0.8971818685531616,
0.21998457610607147,
-0.39884087443351746,
-0.023555496707558632,
0.2567439675331116,
-0.7811312675476074,
1.6676976680755615,
-0.0537843331694603,
0.7912425398826599,
0.10069306939840317,
-0.49146807193756104,
0.10164094716310... | |
qxp6y | Can someone please explain to me what this is on the weather map and how it formed like this? | I was looking at the weather today and I noticed something I haven't seen before. It appears to be a circle with a few rings of clouds on the radar. Take a look here. _URL_0_
Edit. Here is a gif I made of it. _URL_1_ On radar it lasted almost an hour.
Edit 2. I looked at the size of the circle and found out that is was around 80 miles in diameter. Not sure if that helps at all. I'm not sure what is the range on a single weather station radar. | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c419u37",
"c41a8x2"
],
"text": [
"I see the radar site!\n\nWeather radar sometimes misbehaves with cloud formations too close to the system. I'd bet good money this station's radar data comes from a site in Aberdeen.",
"It looks like there's a malfunction. The way Doppler radar works is that you launch waves from the station and they bounce off of raindrop sized particles and return. To get different distances from the station, you launch at different angles. Sometimes, stations have different radars for the different angles. It's probable that one of the radars is malfunctioning and reading an abnormally high signal."
],
"score": [
11,
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": [
"http://i.imgur.com/CSinp.jpg",
"http://imgur.com/QVmKc"
]
} | {
"url": []
} | Can someone please explain to me what this is on the weather map and how it formed like this?
I was looking at the weather today and I noticed something I haven't seen before. It appears to be a circle with a few rings of clouds on the radar. Take a look here. _URL_0_ Edit. Here is a gif I made of it. _URL_1_ On radar it lasted almost an hour. Edit 2. I looked at the size of the circle and found out that is was around 80 miles in diameter. Not sure if that helps at all. I'm not sure what is the range on a single weather station radar. | [
-0.37718915939331055,
-0.8616976141929626,
0.7411931157112122,
-0.05522040277719498,
-0.9967161417007446,
-0.584567129611969,
-0.44964879751205444,
-0.024518094956874847,
0.8264122009277344,
0.11324417591094971,
1.1796149015426636,
0.014083793386816978,
-0.31855618953704834,
0.857998609542... | |
12tza0 | What are emergent properties? | I don't mean the dictionary version, but how is it possible to get conciseness from brain cells or brain cells from molecules. Even things like viscosity and elasticity seem to come from nowhere (to me). | askscience | {
"a_id": [
"c6y7cr5"
],
"text": [
"Emergent properties are those that you get \"for free\" when you specify the more basic laws. They come about as a result of simpler interactions, but behave regularly enough that it's easier to make up a new concept to describe them."
],
"score": [
2
]
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | {
"url": []
} | What are emergent properties?
I don't mean the dictionary version, but how is it possible to get conciseness from brain cells or brain cells from molecules. Even things like viscosity and elasticity seem to come from nowhere (to me). | [
-1.0327978134155273,
-0.3564794063568115,
1.0110520124435425,
0.7749477624893188,
-0.6601976752281189,
-0.38937491178512573,
0.41934582591056824,
-0.48375871777534485,
0.760723888874054,
0.6393121480941772,
0.682815432548523,
0.8149290084838867,
-0.6837578415870667,
0.0932600274682045,
0... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.