Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

All Your Science Questions Answered Here


Cimber

Recommended Posts

Ok, well I'm going to try this again. I am tired of people making threads trying to discredit different aspects of science. I am also tired of seeing posts like "Science doesn't want to find the answers" or something similar to that. Wrong, you don't want to find the answers. Other people on this board have a scientific background, including me.

This thread is about clearing up everything you don't know or what to know about any science related topic.

I think evolution is stupid and wrong?
Then post that here, but be specific. What do you think is wrong? What is your rationale for thinking this way?

The big bang didn't happen.
If you feel this way, then tell us this and why?

Anything you have an issue with in science please post it here and I PROMISE it would be answered by me or another person who is more qualified.

But alas, this thread will probably end up on the third page with no questions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • camlax

    24

  • Raptor

    10

  • questionmark

    9

  • Moon Monkey

    8

How did the ear come to be? It's more complex than the eye and more delicate.

I've always wondered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can I prove the Poincaré conjecture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baby: is it really the "other", other white meat?

linked-image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can I prove the Poincaré conjecture?

This forum does not (unfortunately) support proper mathematical notation, so walking you through it would be rather difficult. Here are two links to Perelman's proof via Ricci flow.

Paper 2

Paper 3

Hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum does not (unfortunately) support proper mathematical notation, so walking you through it would be rather difficult. Here are two links to Perelman's proof via Ricci flow.

Paper 2

Paper 3

Hope that helps.

durn, forgot about Perelman... but I guess I'll find another one for you....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did the ear come to be? It's more complex than the eye and more delicate.

I've always wondered.

The ear I believe (correct me if I am wrong Cimber) is a more simple organ than the eye (at least in mammals). Anyway, there is actually a lot of transitional fossils from reptiles to mammals and much to do with how we got our ears. The lower jaw and its anatomy is actually closely related to the ear. Heres some transitional fossils.

1. Sphenacodon (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, about 270 million years ago (Mya)). Lower jaw is made of multiple bones; the jaw hinge is fully reptilian. No eardrum.

2. Biarmosuchia (late Permian). One of the earliest therapsids. Jaw hinge is more mammalian. Upper jaw is fixed. Hindlimbs are more upright.

3. Procynosuchus (latest Permian). A primitive cynodont, a group of mammal-like therapsids. Most of the lower jaw bones are grouped in a small complex near the jaw hinge.

4. Thrinaxodon (early Triassic). A more advanced cynodont. An eardrum has developed in the lower jaw, allowing it to hear airborne sound. Its quadrate and articular jaw bones could vibrate freely, allowing them to function for sound transmission while still functioning as jaw bones. All four legs are fully upright.

5. Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, about 235 Mya). It has two jaw joints: mammalian and reptilian (White 2002a).

6. Diarthrognathus (early Jurassic, 209 Mya). An advanced cynodont. It still has a double jaw joint, but the reptilian joint functions almost entirely for hearing.

7. Morganucodon (early Jurassic, about 220 Mya). It still has a remnant of the reptilian jaw joint (Kermack et al. 1981).

8. Hadrocodium (early Jurassic). Its middle ear bones have moved from the jaw to the cranium (Luo et al. 2001; White 2002b).

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum does not (unfortunately) support proper mathematical notation, so walking you through it would be rather difficult. Here are two links to Perelman's proof via Ricci flow.

Paper 2

Paper 3

Hope that helps.

So, how about the Hodge Conjecture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ear I believe (correct me if I am wrong Cimber) is a more simple organ than the eye (at least in mammals). Anyway, there is actually a lot of transitional fossils from reptiles to mammals and much to do with how we got our ears. The lower jaw and its anatomy is actually closely related to the ear. Heres some transitional fossils.

Link

Awesome, I've bookmarked the site for reading tomorrow. I always thought it was more complicated due to the bones within the ear.

Thanks :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since there is already a bit of jest, I'll ask this.

Are the pyramidal cells in the cerbral cortex responsible for building those egyptian pyramids? Are the stellate cells that way for some other reason, such as...

Never mind. I'm obviously kidding. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, how about the Hodge Conjecture?

That is impossible. It has yet to be proofed and is still a conjecture. Would that I could proof it, I would gladly come froward and claim the credit of proofing a millennium prize problem ;) . Did you just want the answer to get the award? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is zero point energy ??? :D and is it true that we can utilize it . cant remember where i read this but i did somewhere LOL

thanks

blessings SS79

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is zero point energy ??? :D and is it true that we can utilize it . cant remember where i read this but i did somewhere LOL

thanks

blessings SS79

Zero point energy refers to the lowest energy state of a system, specifically one that functions on quantum principles. Like the void of space. No we cannot utilize ZPE. It has become, like so many things in the quantum world, a piece of sci-fi culture. Lots of fake "scientific" devices exist that can magically extract the lowest energy from a system. Unfortunately, none work or have worked.

There is a whole branch involved in the study of ZPE in physics. However, they are not looking for pseudoscientific ways of 'using' this. Rather what causes this background energy to exist. Generally it was thought to be caused by vibrational interactions among atoms, however it exists even in void where the densities are extremely low. More likely, it is caused by interactions and fine vibrations in quantum particles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can lead a creationist to science but you cant make them think.

On behalf of Dorothy Parker, I insist you give her credit for the basis of that remark:

speaker: "Use horticulture in a sentence."

DP: "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think."

--Jaylemurph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is impossible. It has yet to be proofed and is still a conjecture. Would that I could proof it, I would gladly come froward and claim the credit of proofing a millennium prize problem ;) . Did you just want the answer to get the award? ;)

nah, just have an irresistible irk to poke some fun at those who have "all the answers".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice thread, it will be nice actually discussing science rather than arguing about it for once. I've got three questions:

1. How are behavioural traits (i.e. instincts) inherited?

2. How do environmental factors trigger various morphs within a species, as in phenotypic plasticity?

3. How does the body go about rebuilding muscle if there's insufficient protein available?

The incubation temperature of the eggs of certain species of reptiles can determine what the sex of the individual will be, is that technically an example of phenotypic plasticity?

EDIT: Added third question.

Edited by Raptor X7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fed up. I have a very simple o-chem question that is not explicitly answered in any of the several texts I've referred to, nor can I find a satisfactory answer online.

Are alkyl groups simply alkane functional groups, or can they be alkenes and alkynes as well? Can a non-aromatic cyclic hydrocarbon (ie cyclohexane, cyclohexene) be considered an alkyl group? What about a long alkane chain with an aromatic side group (say 4-phenyl-heptane), would that be considered an alkyl group if it were bonded to another organic molecule?

Thanks,

Dane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fed up. I have a very simple o-chem question that is not explicitly answered in any of the several texts I've referred to, nor can I find a satisfactory answer online.

Are alkyl groups simply alkane functional groups, or can they be alkenes and alkynes as well? Can a non-aromatic cyclic hydrocarbon (ie cyclohexane, cyclohexene) be considered an alkyl group? What about a long alkane chain with an aromatic side group (say 4-phenyl-heptane), would that be considered an alkyl group if it were bonded to another organic molecule?

Thanks,

Dane

Alkane, alkene and alkyne refers to bonds associated with a carbon. Alkane being a single bond (C-C), alkene being a double bond (C=C) and alkyne being a triple bond (which we can represent with a plus sign) (C+C).

An alkyl group refers to a carbon radical with 3 or less associated hydrogens. The number of hydrogens designates what prefix you use to describe the alkyl group.

Lets look at some examples.

Here we have 3-methyl-1-butene.

linked-image

If I ask you if this has an alkyl functional group. The answer is yes. It does.

What is the alkyl group?

A methane located at butene's 3rd carbon.

Its actually really easy to get. We call alkanes full saturated carbon chains. Alkane simply refers to the whole group. In the alkanes you have methane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, heptane, octane, nonane, decane.

If one of these are a radical (only 3 valence electrons being used, which means it is short 1 hydrogen) then we call it an alkyl functional group. So the names would methyl, propyl, butyl, pentyl, hexyl, heptyl, octyl, nonyl, decyl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A. What does Creationism have to do with Science?

B. Why do scientists feel the need to correct Creationist more than those members of the field of Evolution who make declarative statements about theory.

Thanks for starting this thread!!! What a great idea! Off to think of more questions. :gun:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I dont think I answered your question I do now see what you are asking.

For example,

The compound

linked-image

We would call that 3-ethyl-2-methylhexane.

Now I think you are asking is what if the ethane here on carbon 3 was a double bond CH=CH2?

That would change the whole name convention. Because, if the ethane there contained a double bond it would change the priority in which we label the molecule. We would need to call carbon 1 the 2nd carbon of the ethane. Then we would have

3-isopropyl-1-hexene

Can a non-aromatic cyclic hydrocarbon (ie cyclohexane, cyclohexene) be considered an alkyl group? What about a long alkane chain with an aromatic side group (say 4-phenyl-heptane), would that be considered an alkyl group if it were bonded to another organic molecule?

If it is a cyclic compound you name it as a cyclic compound. For example

linked-image

Here we would say the functional groups are a carboxyl group and a cyclic alkane.

Edited by camlax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A. What does Creationism have to do with Science?

B. Why do scientists feel the need to correct Creationist more than those members of the field of Evolution who make declarative statements about theory.

Thanks for starting this thread!!! What a great idea! Off to think of more questions. :gun:

The thread title

All Your Science Questions Answered Here, Evolution, Biology, Big Bang... Anything!

The anything does not refer to literally anything, rather to anything about science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It says ANYTHING!!!! And it IS about Science?

and I thought you might like to answer the question that I've been asking you for nearly a month now?

But sorry, my bad. Only ones you like to answer. ooops

Edited by truethat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.