LamaGT
Emperor
I'm not really sure how we can dig concrete tombs in the deep ocean. Even doing so at 200 meters would mean operating at a pressure of 20 atmospheres, and that's not even close to the deep sea.
Science questions not worth a thread I: I'm a moron!
- Thread starter The Imp
- Start date
- Status
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Well they actually probably could do it - they frequently have to pour concrete at extreme depths to work on oil rigs and such. Still daunting and expensive to dig a tomb, but maybe not impossible.
@Dutchfire, before I opened your link, I thought you were talking about Project Azorian. Now that was a freaking awesome black project!
@Dutchfire, before I opened your link, I thought you were talking about Project Azorian. Now that was a freaking awesome black project!
SouthernKing
crickety cricket
The problem with that is, unless you dump them in shallow waters (in which case they could pose a shipping hazard) I don't think concrete would be able to survive intact at great depths.
Bluemofia
F=ma
I think it is problems with one of their decay chains, on how the Protactinium-233 decay product that occurs when you bombard Thorium with neutrons (Beta decay from Th-233 to Pa-233) takes a few days to decay into a usable form (U-233) first, which may cause problems with neutrons reacting with Pa-233 in the meantime. I gave a presentation on this in undergrad a few years ago, so I don't quite remember the exact details anymore, but there's probably enough information on the board to look it up more precisely.
Anyhow, the jist of it is that you need to bombard a target with with a proton beam to produce free neutrons (Proton Spallation), and use that to prime Th-232 into Th-233, which decays into Pa-233 quickly. This then decays after a few days into U-233, which then can accept another neutron and fissile into decay products and 2 neutrons, making it neutron neutral assuming no neutron loss. The problem lies in that Pa-233, if bombarded with a neutron, turns into some neutrons and U-232, which decays into strong gamma ray emitters, which then causes problems in containing it. I think U-233 also has that as a problem, with a lowish probability of it decaying into U-232 as well.
I can't imagine why it wouldn't. Even if you made it out of solid steel, it's still going to do the job long enough. The radiation isn't going anywhere.
I assume you mean natural numbers here. (not 0.5 or pi)
Of the numbers 0,1,2,3,4,5, there are 4 out of 6 divisible by 2 or 3. Any larger number x can be written as x=6*n+k with n some (natural) number and k one of the 6 earlier named numbers.
x/3 = 2*n + k / 3
x/2 = 3*n + k / 2
So x is divisible by 2 or 3 whenever k is, which it is two out of three times.
Of the numbers 0,1,2,3,4,5, there are 4 out of 6 divisible by 2 or 3. Any larger number x can be written as x=6*n+k with n some (natural) number and k one of the 6 earlier named numbers.
x/3 = 2*n + k / 3
x/2 = 3*n + k / 2
So x is divisible by 2 or 3 whenever k is, which it is two out of three times.
PlutonianEmpire
King of the Plutonian Empire
I know nothing about genetic sciences, but my common sense tells me they'd examine more than one individual organism.
2/3 of all whole numbers is hard to define when the number of whole numbers is infinity.
Mise
isle of lucy
Dutchfire managed to prove it!
I'm not a genealogists either, but I think they all belong to the species. That is, it is presumed that superficially similar animals of two completely different species are unlikely to have significant genetic similarity due to the superficial similarity; almost all generic similarity would be from common decent. So for the purposes of comparison between species, you may not need to have multiple samples of both species.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
IIRC, the private effort to sequence the human genome actually only sequenced the genome of the founder of the company. Sequencing is much faster and cheaper now, but back then at least it was so expensive and time consuming you could only do one at a time.
Even when doing multiple individuals, how do they tell if some genes they share are universal to the species vs coincidental to the group?
And souron, I understand you, but my follow up question kind of goes back to my first:
How do they tell if a gene in the individual they sequenced is just a freak mutation vs a gene the whole species share without something to compare it to?
I know that they will likely have variations of all the same genes, but how do they know if the genome they have sequenced has some unique genes.
How do they tell which variation is 'standard'?
Even when doing multiple individuals, how do they tell if some genes they share are universal to the species vs coincidental to the group?
And souron, I understand you, but my follow up question kind of goes back to my first:
How do they tell if a gene in the individual they sequenced is just a freak mutation vs a gene the whole species share without something to compare it to?
I know that they will likely have variations of all the same genes, but how do they know if the genome they have sequenced has some unique genes.
How do they tell which variation is 'standard'?
There is no standard. Everyone is unique.
It is easy to prove that taking this limit over a subset of the natural numbers which ar divisible by some number (6 in this case) is enough to prove the general case, since if 6a < x < 6(a+1) then f_i(6a) < f_i(x) < f_i(6(a+1)).
edit: and maybe you should say p!=0, otherwise you could prove that a fraction 0 of all numbers is prime, which is a bit silly.
Let f_i(N) be the number of numbers smaller than N that has a property i. We say a fraction p of numbers has property i if lim_N->infinity f_i(N)/N exists and is equal to p.
It is easy to prove that taking this limit over a subset of the natural numbers which ar divisible by some number (6 in this case) is enough to prove the general case, since if 6a < x < 6(a+1) then f_i(6a) < f_i(x) < f_i(6(a+1)).
edit: and maybe you should say p!=0, otherwise you could prove that a fraction 0 of all numbers is prime, which is a bit silly.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Dutchfire, what I meant is that there is a set of genes that are pretty standard to a species. The individuals may have variations of those genes, but they all have them, mostly. However, there may be some genes entirely missing or entire new ones in an individual, I am asking how the sequencers can tell when these pop up.
I don't expect that to be the case. I'd expect that the mechanisms that cause mutations don't care which gene they mutate, so I'd expect similar variation in pretty much every gene (except that some bad mutations die).
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Ah, but then how do you tell which genes are necessary to build a given species? All of the organisms within the species may have variations of these genes, but without a form or a functional form of the genes at all, they will have severe defects or will die or will not be of that species. There may well also be extraneous genes that are just there or are new mutations but are not prevalent or necessary for the species.
How do you tell with a limited sample which genes are necessary? How do you tell what the 'basic' version of a gene is so that you may then label some variations mutations and so on?
How do you tell with a limited sample which genes are necessary? How do you tell what the 'basic' version of a gene is so that you may then label some variations mutations and so on?
You're starting to wade into territory that's not appropriate for a thread titled 'Science questions not worth their own thread'.
Not that I'm trying to quash discussion - quite the opposite! But perhaps this line of inquiry will warrant its own thread.
It sounds perfectly reasonable to me that a fraction of 0 of all numbers is prime.
- Status
Similar threads
