r/AskScienceDiscussion

I'm thinking I would aim for sciences related to physics because my background is not close enough to the other sciences like biology or chemistry.

I’ve been thinking about a concept and I’m not sure if it’s plausible. I got this idea from a video by kurzgesagt on dyson spheres.

The idea is basically building a huge (let's think 1km tall) slingshot or some sort of launch system (catapult-like?), powered entirely by solar energy, that could propel trash containers to absurdly high speeds and shoot them out of the atmosphere into space, out of orbit.

The waste would be put in some kind of protective capsule so it doesn’t break apart or burn up during launch. The goal would be to slowly move towards a trash deficit (?) on Earth.

Is this physically possible?

If "waste" is deemed unfit due to desintegration issues, would it be feasible to create a carbon deficit in the atmosphere by mass planting and shooting out trees?

Thanks in advance!

Assuming the Europeans knew about the American continent and did not want to infect them with diseases what would they have to do to? Is their only option to wait till they invent something? What would they need to invent?

Not just math problems, but deeper questions about physics, consciousness, the universe, biology, history, or reality itself. Could it eventually discover truths that humans simply could not figure out on our own, or will it always be limited by human knowledge and understanding?

This might be stupid but I thought about something today:

Photosynthesis consumes C02, it is well known. So we could technically just add more trees and other plants, and that's what some people are trying to do. But this requires a lot of space and isn't THAT efficient because of the amount of C02 out there. But what if we could somehow make a kind of artificial photosynthesis, quicker? The problem would be that to make it, we would need energy and producing energy will always release C02 whether it is a lot or not. But again, what if we could make it so it consumes more C02 than the amount it's releasing? It would create a kind of positive loop and maybe one day solve partially the greenhouse gases problem (just a part of it because C02 isn't the only greenhouse gases and those gases already did a lot of damage).

What are your thoughts about this? And are they any research on the topic?

PS: - I'm french so I'm sorry if my English is a bit rough

- I'm only a highschool student and I'm studying math and physics so I'm not really good in biology and this kind of stuff

Seen some articles about people drowning in canals, in the uk theyre only 3-4 foot deep meaning if you stand it'll be well below your head. multiple people have said the silt at the bottom is very slippery and I've seen one article where the slippery silt at the bottom was mentioned in the article as the reason a person (who couldnt swim) drowned, because she couldnt regain her footing after falling in evem though it was chest deep.

is this actually true? i find it hard to believe mud can be more slippery than ice, which people stand on.

I am not a scientist but this topic deeply interests me and I am specifically interested in our role (if any) as climate change occurs in our planet! I want to understand the natural shift in geological epochs and how the exploration of natural resources and carbon footprint really impacts our planet! I would love to have some book recommendations (plus if available in audiobook format) but I am also open to papers and lectures. I am looking for a scientific/evidence based outlook not activism!

I'm coming up with a fantasy world that was essentially supernaturally created ~200,000 years before its equivalent to the bronze age. I was created with a functioning ecosystem, but not any fossils and thus no fossil fuels. It would still have charcoal and peat, and I am thinking of implementing fantasy elements as workarounds for metallurgy, firearms, flight, etc. Still, what things would be missing from this world. I've already thought of:

• combustion engines

• plastics (I guess plant-based plastics are possible, though)

• more difficult metalworking

• paraffin candles and heaters

• more difficult home heating

This is a follow-up question from my askhistorian thread here. As you can see in that thread that it seemed that eugenics was considered acceptable science back then.

This is I think a bit of more the philosophy and ethics question rather than pure science one but how do we know that some of the practice that we do today isn't causing active harm? Is it because modern science has become more concerned with ethics or is it because modern science has a lot more diverse background of scientist?

I saw a picture of liquid egg whites today and I thought to myself wow this looks a whole lot like semen. Then I thought to myself wow egg whites are just protein and if I'm not mistaken sperm is majority protein because it needs the energy and structure.

Therefore if cooking is just denaturing proteins and

For all Intents and purposes egg whites are of an almost identical texture colour and whilst because they are both basically just protein.

Would semen cook just the same as an egg white and come out as a solid?

Lets say as an example you drive your car of a cliff. It reaches it's terminal velocity before the bottom. What kind of force are we talking about?

Could a human jump up from his convertable like 3 seconds before impact? How about a kangaroo?

The thought arose from a recent action labs YT video.

edit - Specifically asking about animals that would probably be killed.

My understanding of Einstein's most famous equation is e.g. a proton is made of 3 quarks but its mass is more like 300 quarks because of the kinetic and binding energy. So a proton in an electric field accelerates like 100 times less than you'd expect from the mass of quarks alone.

But a photon when it leaves a medium with a high refractive index and progresses into a vacuum instantly accelerates back to c like it had no mass. Even if it has energy 🤔

Especially when it comes to Freeman's horrific "At Home" procedures. From what I have heard, he was not a trained surgeon and generally did not work within proper operating rooms. His methods were so crude and so brutal that even many proponents of Lobotomy spoke out against him.

He devastated his victims brains with an icepick. This left most of them husks of their former selves. Not all of them survived, his mortality rate (he should be considered a serial killer, really) was incredibly high, but some seem to have lived for many years - even decades. I'm honestly astounded more didn't die quickly from medical complications. Even setting aside the trauma and risk of hemorrhaging, surely infection would be a major concern? It doesn't sound like he was particularly hygienic. And he certainly wasn't careful.

I have a classic pink salt lamp. it had been sitting for a bit unused. I moved it and plugged it in to check the bulb, nope not working. I unplugged it and then tried to take the old bulb out to put a new one in. as soon as I pulled the bulb bit out I heard a huge pop and glass went everywhere. there was a chemical kind of odour. I quickly put it outside in case it was dangerous. I noticed the metal parts that hold the bulb in were rusted.

any one know what reaction has occurred to cause this?!

If aliens were observing Earth from light-years away, they’d be seeing our past because light takes time to travel. And if they moved closer, they’d see more recent events in Earth’s timeline.

But would it ever be possible for them to see Earth’s future instead of its past? Or does physics make that impossible?

[Speculation] Is our definition of life too carbon-biased? I've been exploring a silicon/boron alternative and want the science checked.

I've been thinking about non-carbon life and whether ammonia could work as a solvent the way water works for us. Not as the life form itself — ammonia would be the medium, like water is our medium, not what we're made of.

The structure I've been exploring is a silicon/boron crystal lattice stabilised by chlorine, using ammonia as its operating fluid. I'm calling it SBSC. When conditions change and ammonia evaporates it doesn't die — it crystallises and waits, like a tardigrade. When ammonia returns it revives.

Enceladus has confirmed hydrothermal vents, silica nanoparticles, ammonia, sodium chloride and molecular hydrogen. That's almost exactly the environment this would need.

My questions for people who actually know the chemistry:

• Is silicon/boron/chlorine chemistry viable in liquid ammonia?
• Are there reasons this couldn't work that I'm missing?
• Are we possibly searching for the wrong kind of life on Enceladus?

I'm speculating but trying to speculate correctly. Please tear it apart.

Title.