Ask A Science Question - Page 11

Ask A Science Question

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 11 of 65 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 21 61 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 644
Thank Tree398Thanks

This is a discussion on Ask A Science Question within the Science and Technology forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; Originally Posted by bigtex1989 The slope of a line is the change in y divided by the change in x. ...

  1. #101

    Quote Originally Posted by bigtex1989 View Post
    The slope of a line is the change in y divided by the change in x. rise over run. the slope of a curve is the same idea, but requires either calculus or really imaginative algebra
    Is this kind of like

    y2-y1
    _____
    x2-x1

    ?

  2. #102

    Quote Originally Posted by avatarphen View Post
    Is this kind of like

    y2-y1
    _____
    x2-x1

    ?
    that definitely works

  3. #103

    Since fusion reactions can reach a point where the elements being fused would no longer produce energy. I had this thought by thinking "what if a black hole is not actually a singularity from a collapsed star, but rather is a fusion reaction that has reached the point where it is no longer producing energy, but requires more energy to continue, and thus starts absorbing light and other energy from the outside since it's mass forces it to continue"

    From my understanding, the creation of a black hole is usually a fairly sudden occurrence, and my description would probably be a slow decline in energy output. So my question is: Are there any phases that a star can go through that would lead to a situation like I described above? Can a negative energy fusion reaction be forced by adding additional energy, and could the mass of a star force this reaction to the point where additional external energy is being absorbed?

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #104

    Quote Originally Posted by Desolan View Post
    Since fusion reactions can reach a point where the elements being fused would no longer produce energy. I had this thought by thinking "what if a black hole is not actually a singularity from a collapsed star, but rather is a fusion reaction that has reached the point where it is no longer producing energy, but requires more energy to continue, and thus starts absorbing light and other energy from the outside since it's mass forces it to continue"

    From my understanding, the creation of a black hole is usually a fairly sudden occurrence, and my description would probably be a slow decline in energy output. So my question is: Are there any phases that a star can go through that would lead to a situation like I described above? Can a negative energy fusion reaction be forced by adding additional energy, and could the mass of a star force this reaction to the point where additional external energy is being absorbed?
    The short answer is no. As far as stars are understood, what happens is the atoms get so massive that they can no longer surpass the Coulomb barrier and thus, fusion no longer takes place inside the star. This allows gravitational forces to overcome radiation pressure and the star collapses into a singularity (if the star is of the right mass). There are a few different scenarios, but only one pertains to black holes., which is the one I mentioned above.

    I could look for some equations in my astrophysics book if they would mean anything, but I doubt they would aid in the conceptual understanding, and I doubt it isn't anything you haven't seen before.

  6. #105

    if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still some of them left?
    birthday and Dagger thanked this post.

  7. #106

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariz View Post
    if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still some of them left?
    While I am not an evolutionary biologist, I believe the most accepted story is something similar to this. Some monkeys (possibly due to food restrictions) moved to the plains. Curved feet, hair, long arms, and a hunched poster, while perfect for climbing, are not desirable for plains living. Slowly but surely, these now undesirable traits were breed out. Then something happened to create a new species. That species was Cro magnon and it appeared about 35,000 years ago. Then we never looked back.

    It is important to note a few things about evolution. It is a reactionary process and the mechanism is "survival of the fittest". Note that all modern day monkeys live in heavily forested areas. Monkeys haven't evolved because they haven't needed to lol.

  8. #107

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariz View Post
    if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still some of them left?
    On the PBS site, listed under frequently asked questions:

    1. Did we evolve from monkeys?

    "Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids."

    From the evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins:



    Here's more information on the human-chimpanzee common ancestor.
    Jagbas thanked this post.

  9. #108

    Given that the composition of water is H2O, and that hydrogen ignites in air and that oxygen is the one thing you want to keep out in order to put out a fire - why is it that water is used to put out a fire. Any answers need to be ridiculously simply as I am not a scientist (pretty obvious). The bloody question popped into my mind 10 mins ago and won`t leave me alone.

  10. #109

    Quote Originally Posted by RRRoooaaaRRR View Post
    Given that the composition of water is H2O, and that hydrogen ignites in air and that oxygen is the one thing you want to keep out in order to put out a fire - why is it that water is used to put out a fire. Any answers need to be ridiculously simply as I am not a scientist (pretty obvious). The bloody question popped into my mind 10 mins ago and won`t leave me alone.
    Water on fire vaporizes. Vapor rapidly expanding pushes oxygen away from fire. Fire has no oxygen. Fire dies out.
    RRRoooaaaRRR thanked this post.

  11. #110

    Thank you - much appreciated :)


     
Page 11 of 65 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 21 61 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Science and you
    By NephilimAzrael in forum INTJ Forum - The Scientists
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-04-2012, 03:53 PM
  2. Science Webcomics
    By skycloud86 in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-10-2011, 06:02 AM
  3. science inspired art and art in science
    By susurration in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-06-2011, 02:54 AM
  4. ... Science!
    By sprinkles in forum The Art Museum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-19-2010, 09:59 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:13 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0