Science questions not worth a thread I: I'm a moron!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Superfluids have zero viscosity, meaning that they can flow out of containers and the like.

Non-newtonian fluids change viscosity according to the amount of shear applied.

edit: meaning that you can make cool things happen with a non-newtonian fluid on a subwoofer. Or in a pool.

Ketchup is actually a non-newtonian fluid. The more force is applied, the lower the viscosity, ie, the easier it is to penetrate.
"Oobleck" (actually a suspension of starch in water) acts the opposite, with the viscosity increasing with shear rate.
 
Plasma is more than a form of matter. It's a really awesome form of matter.

Not as awesome as a superfluid, though.

It's ionized gas, with some special properties basically.
It's a good way to get samples into a mass spectrometer analyzer.


And I'm late to the discussion, but blood plasma is a distinct fraction of blood. It's the liquid part that contain soluble proteins plus the clotting factor. It's usually separated from the blood cells like Contre mentioned. Blood plasma is NOT a state of matter; there's no ionized matter in blood plasma, though you can ionize it if you WANT. :)
 
For habitable planets similar to Earth; if it has ice caps, is it normal for the average latitudes of ice cap expansion (how close the ice cap's edges get to the equator, on average) to be a wee bit different between the north and south hemispheres, at the same time?

Eg, the northern cap averages as far south as say, 65° N, while the southern cap averages as far north as 62° S?

Off the top of my head, I know continental arrangement and ocean currents may play a role, but may there be other factors as well?
 
For habitable planets similar to Earth; if it has ice caps, is it normal for the average latitudes of ice cap expansion (how close the ice cap's edges get to the equator, on average) to be a wee bit different between the north and south hemispheres, at the same time?

Well, yeah. Remember that Earth is on a tilt, f(x) amount of degrees for any x time of the year. The northern and southern ice caps fluctuate seasonally all the time. Plus, I'm pretty sure it's harder for ice caps to advance over water than over land. Because Antarctica is completely surrounded by water, the ice caps don't advance as far as say the northern ice cap over Canada.

Off the top of my head, I know continental arrangement and ocean currents may play a role, but may there be other factors as well?

Atmospheric fluctuations. Distance of the Earth from the sun; at the aphelion (farthest distance) less thermal energy hits the Earth, so it's cooler. Just the opposite at the perihelion.

Then of course we have global warming. :p Humans are terrible.

*However* I think that the amount of carbon dioxide able to be absorbed by the oceans is directly proportional to the temperature of the water. So this would also seasonally affect the ice caps.


just some thoughts.
 
Meteor Man said:
Plus, I'm pretty sure it's harder for ice caps to advance over water than over land. Because Antarctica is completely surrounded by water, the ice caps don't advance as far as say the northern ice cap over Canada.

I'm not sure this is right - after all, the arctic icecap is sitting on the arctic sea, whereas the antarctic cap is on land. The extent of arctic summer sea ice fluctuates, and I presume the extent of antarctic summer sea ice fluctuates as well.

One big difference between the northern and southern caps is that in the south you have glaciers and ice-shelfs as a result of the ice forming over land and sliding onto the sea. In the north, the cap originates wholly over the sea. Even in the south the ice can extend hundreds of kilometers from the coast in places.
 
For habitable planets similar to Earth; if it has ice caps, is it normal for the average latitudes of ice cap expansion (how close the ice cap's edges get to the equator, on average) to be a wee bit different between the north and south hemispheres, at the same time?

Eg, the northern cap averages as far south as say, 65° N, while the southern cap averages as far north as 62° S?

Off the top of my head, I know continental arrangement and ocean currents may play a role, but may there be other factors as well?

If you had a smooth sphere that had a near-perfect orbit and equal distribution of water, I'd expect very similar ice caps. Planets aren't like that. Mars' "southern" ice cap extends much further over the surface of the planet than does the "northern" one. Though Earth's orbit is much more circular than Mars' and the difference might be from that.
 
I know for a while, it was said that Jupiter helped shield Earth from asteroid collisions, but more recent studies indicate potentially the opposite. The question is, did they take into account alternative scenarios where the asteroid belt didn't exist or resided elsewhere in the system, when performing the more recent studies?
 
Probably. Astronomers are definitely not idiots. Does it matter though? They're more worried about the solar system as it exists, including the asteriod belt's current position and it's corresponding effect on Earth.
 
article said:
Although this isn’t “direct” observation of gravitational waves, it is evidence inferred by their predicted effects
This.
I also think similar indirect evidence has been available before. It is however hard to exclude all sorts of alternative explanations off these indirect effects.
Also, they have just measured energy loss in a gravitational system, but no actual wave-nature of the energy loss.
 
The genes relating to the energy centres of cells (mitochondria) are inherited from the mother, if I recall correctly.

Kind of. Mitochondria themselves have genomes that encode for some of the proteins in mitochondria. That would be inherited from the mother. However, there're a large number of nuclear genes that affect the mitochondria and that produce proteins that make up the mitochondria (e.g.,).

PGC1-alpha is a major regulator of mitochondrial biosynthesis, and its home is on Chromosome 4.
 
Can someone explain to me what a "coral bleaching event" is? :confused: Please!

http://www.reefed.edu.au/home/explo...ing/coral_bleaching_on_the_great_barrier_reef

In 1998, sea temperatures in some parts of the Great Barrier Reef were between 10C and 20C above normal temperatures for that period. Globally, the temperatures reached and the extents of bleaching at this time were the highest ever recorded. Aerial surveys of the Great Barrier Reef showed that 87 percent of inshore reefs surveyed were bleached to some extent while bleaching affected 28 percent of surveyed mid-shelf and offshore reefs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19800253

Two severe coral bleaching events in 1998 and 2002 due to ocean warming also had "major detrimental impacts" on the central and northern parts of the reef, the study found, putting the impact at 10%.
 
It means the coral is dying. Healthy coral=vibrant colors. Dead coral=bone white.

Thanks. :) My local newspaper got it the other way around. The corals died because there was a bleach out. :crazyeye:
 
Well cause and effect are a bit mixed there. As I understand it the color is an indicator of health. White being an indicator of death. The cause of death is believed to be primarily warming waters. But there are other factors as well. Overfishing being one of them.
 
The colour in coral is not the coral itself, but rather algae that lives symbiotically with the coral. If the algae dies or is kicked out, the coral suffers and eventually dies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom