Considder Your Science Questions Answered

Posts: 306
How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck planks?
Reply Quote
Posts: 689
Nice topic. I don't have the time nor internet at my house currently to keep track. I have a few questions that I sadly will never get the answer too so I won't ask. Don't listen to the haters, they are jealous of your superior intelligence. ;)
Reply Quote
Posts: 689
08/07/2012 01:54 PMPosted by ToughGuy
How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck planks?


A wood chuck could chuck as much wood as a wood chuck could if a wood chuck could chuck planks.

Note: The question asked was not asked properly, the answer is a direct refletction of the question asked.
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,474
08/06/2012 07:53 PMPosted by RootKit
I havn't even gotten into college yet.


See I knew it.

You know nothing of Science.

If you had a REAL degree, and weren't 14, you'd know better than to go off spouting nonsense and claiming you have the answer to all Science's mysteries.

You should feel ashamed for even trying.

Not for discussing ideas, but for sitting there and thinking that it's okay to make a thread asking people to ask you Science questions.

You probably didn't expect to run into somebody who might actually know something about Science.

You are also horrendously obvious in Google searching my questions then paraphrasing answers which you don't really understand.


you're kind of a %%@*. just saying.
Reply Quote
Posts: 288
What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything?

42

Whatever that means.

YES! FAVORITE BOOK EVER!
but what is the real question?
Reply Quote
Posts: 288
What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything?

42

Whatever that means.

YES! FAVORITE BOOK EVER!
but what is the real question?
Reply Quote
Posts: 219
how many roads must a man walk down?

anyways, to the OP:

can you describe in detail how surface tension of water works? whats the contact angle? how do solutes affect water's surface tension?
Edited by FrostedFlake on 8/7/2012 2:48 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,463
08/06/2012 08:03 PMPosted by coldsalt
give the guy a break btw, i knew enough to answer most physics questions in HS.. uni only let ask really weird questions


You can't know much about quantum mechanics without knowing what a Hermitian operator or an eigenfunction is. You can't know much about any of modern physics without knowing what an Euler-Lagrange equation is.
Reply Quote
Posts: 215
So a scientist puts a cat in a box along with some poison attached to a timer that will randomly go off between now and soon™, releasing the poison and killing the cat. Nobody knows when the poison will go off. The scientist closes the box and waits.

My question to you is: Without checking the box, is the cat dead or alive?


Answer:
It's both and neither.

THere was something on TV that seemed to imply that the farther the distance is between two objects moving relative to each other, the greater difference in the perception of what everything was "at that instant" would be. It didn't seem to be talking about seeing/perceiving things at the speed of light. It had something to do with future, past, and present all existing for everyone.

But I don't see why distance would increase this effect.


Well, given that you can travel faster than the speed of light, you are capable of seeing your own past (Though not visiting it) by traveling far enough out that you can see the light that was reflected off of you at X time. I'm assuming that's what it meant.
Shrodinger's cat.
Edited by InSaNitY on 8/7/2012 4:00 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,103
08/07/2012 03:05 PMPosted by Abstraction
give the guy a break btw, i knew enough to answer most physics questions in HS.. uni only let ask really weird questions


You can't know much about quantum mechanics without knowing what a Hermitian operator or an eigenfunction is. You can't know much about any of modern physics without knowing what an Euler-Lagrange equation is.
Please explain in great details what thoes words mean lol.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,059
08/06/2012 07:28 PMPosted by EugeneTwo
Why can't we observe Evolution?


Because it hapens over the course of generations. We can speed up evolution through artificial selection, but then it would be predicatable.


We actually can observe evolution of species that are under stress (artificial or natural), the best examples (I can think of) are all within the context of agriculture: herbicide resistant weeds (hand hoeing cotton is on the way back in); insects that constantly adapt to new pesticides (part of the reason new research is always going on, pests are a moving target); potatoes adapt to new soil conditions in 2-3 generations, despite propagating clonally; and there are many more examples.
Reply Quote
Posts: 526
08/06/2012 07:47 PMPosted by EugeneTwo
I havn't even gotten into college yet.


Then please don't try to answer things by either A.) making them up or B.) Reading about it for a few minutes and then paraphrasing what you read. Paraphrasing science has a way of making it very very wrong. You will learn that once you get out of high school, or into very high level classes in high school, in simplifying things, you often times give a completely wrong answer.
Reply Quote
Posts: 526
08/07/2012 06:07 PMPosted by BrockLanders
We actually can observe evolution of species that are under stress (artificial or natural), the best examples (I can think of) are all within the context of agriculture: herbicide resistant weeds (hand hoeing cotton is on the way back in); insects that constantly adapt to new pesticides (part of the reason new research is always going on, pests are a moving target); potatoes adapt to new soil conditions in 2-3 generations, despite propagating clonally; and there are many more examples.


Close, but no cigar. We can see species changing and adapting, but it is not evolution in its entirety. For that, we would need it to become a completely different species, unable to produce viable offspring with another species. We have yet to see evolution in multi-cellular organisms run a full course in real-time. Of course, we can how species of evolved, but we have yet to see evolution, if that makes sense.
Reply Quote
Posts: 454
I have a question about blackbody radiation.

For any object that radiates energy, we need to calculate the distribution of the radiation spectrum.

So, for now, let's define radiancy R as [total energy emitted]/{[unit area][unit time]}.

Then, spectral radiancy R(v)dv would be the radiancy of some frequency interval, [v, v+dv], where v is the frequency of radiation.

If we look at the energy density u(v) of a black box, we see that the u(v) that is incident on one side should be 1/2*u(v), since there are two sides and we only care about one. However, when we do a surface integral on this side, we're going from 0 to π/2 (I hope 'π' comes out correctly; it denotes pi, but some forums don't display it correctly), and not from 0 to π. Knowing surface integrals, we have to halve our u(v) value once more, to only account for energy going out.

So our energy flux per unit time is 1/2*c*u(v), where c is the speed of light.

Now we calculate what u(v) is.

First we see that u(v)dv = [number of EM modes in the frequency interval][energy per mode]. We will denote the number of EM modes in the frequency interval as g(v)dv and the energy per mode as <E>.

To calculate g(v)dv, we'll look at the density of states, N(v), which acounts for the "number" of different wavevectors k with a certain requency. However, this isn't really the pressing part of my question, so I'll disregard it here. After some computations, we get that N(v)=[8π/3][L^3/c^3]v^3, so that the density of states is g(v)dv=[8πv^2/c^3]dv. Easy enough.

We run into a problem when we consider <E>.

Using what we learn in EM, we know that the energy of any radiation is ∫dV[1/2*ε*E^2+1/(2μ)*B^2], which has no dependence on v. This means that R(v)dv=c/4*g(v)dv*<E> ~ v^2*dv, which diverges as v increases. What this means is that for any given energy, higher values of v are favored, and radiancy will be absurdly high for said values of v.

Here is the very pressing question: How can I mend this computation so that the radiancy decays as frequency increases?
Reply Quote
Posts: 787
08/06/2012 08:16 PMPosted by BossBobRoss
Derive the natural frequency expression for a uniform cantilever beam.


It is amusing that this simple yet tedious problem hasn't been resolved. Further proving the fallacy of lazy posters on battle.net, this question is better directed to physics forums. Though I urge you to resolve it by thyself. It takes some differentials, but nothing more. Though your question isn't exactly clear. Are you suggesting the vibration frequency or the translational frequency? Where is the pivot point?
Edited by AgCl on 8/7/2012 7:20 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 113
Alright here's a question I've been wondering about,....

"What exactly is a Higgs field? "

"Could it's manipulation be used to reach super-luminal speeds?"

The latter is probably wishful thinking, I really wish the laws of physics would allow us to move around this universe faster....
Reply Quote
Posts: 787
I

I have a question about blackbody radiation.

For any object that radiates energy, we need to calculate the distribution of the radiation spectrum.

So, for now, let's define radiancy R as [total energy emitted]/{[unit area][unit time]}.

Then, spectral radiancy R(v)dv would be the radiancy of some frequency interval, [v, v+dv], where v is the frequency of radiation.

If we look at the energy density u(v) of a black box, we see that the u(v) that is incident on one side should be 1/2*u(v), since there are two sides and we only care about one. However, when we do a surface integral on this side, we're going from 0 to π/2 (I hope 'π' comes out correctly; it denotes pi, but some forums don't display it correctly), and not from 0 to π. Knowing surface integrals, we have to halve our u(v) value once more, to only account for energy going out.

So our energy flux per unit time is 1/2*c*u(v), where c is the speed of light.

Now we calculate what u(v) is.

First we see that u(v)dv = [number of EM modes in the frequency interval][energy per mode]. We will denote the number of EM modes in the frequency interval as g(v)dv and the energy per mode as <E>.

To calculate g(v)dv, we'll look at the density of states, N(v), which acounts for the "number" of different wavevectors k with a certain requency. However, this isn't really the pressing part of my question, so I'll disregard it here. After some computations, we get that N(v)=[8π/3][L^3/c^3]v^3, so that the density of states is g(v)dv=[8πv^2/c^3]dv. Easy enough.

We run into a problem when we consider <E>.

Using what we learn in EM, we know that the energy of any radiation is ∫dV[1/2*ε*E^2+1/(2μ)*B^2], which has no dependence on v. This means that R(v)dv=c/4*g(v)dv*<E> ~ v^2*dv, which diverges as v increases. What this means is that for any given energy, higher values of v are favored, and radiancy will be absurdly high for said values of v.

Here is the very pressing question: How can I mend this computation so that the radiancy decays as frequency increases?


Isn't higher frequencies (photons) supposed to carry more energy? I think the intensity of the photons will decrease since there is less states of high frequency thus lower the intensity. Sorry I need another year of study to be on your side. (for the post, pi, epsilon and miu came out fine)
Reply Quote
Posts: 787
The simple answer is Higg's field is responsible for the assymetry around you so you have mass.

The latter question is more philosophical than it is scientific. If you can "move" there will it be you?
Reply Quote
Posts: 469
Where does my poop go when i flush it down the toliet? How many ways are there to love a cat? Are stereotypes true? Does area 51 have aliens? Is it possible to breed a
Unicorn? Could the modern bobcat evolve and enslave the human race? Should the big toe have a big ego, and the pinkie toe be modest or vice versa?
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,070
Stereotypes are often true and are only good for generalizations about groups. I can say "women are weaker then men", that is a valid stereotype because it holds true for the majority of group A- women and group B- men. Of course there are some women who are stronger then men but that doesn't disprove the stereotype.

Of course there are also stereotypes which are little more the racism. White kids can't jump, blacks can't see in the dark very well, ect. There are certainly some stereotypes involving race that are generally true, but because racism is so prevalent there are alot of false ones as well.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]