Science Thread - General - Facepunch Forum

[QUOTE=booster;32572284]If you drive a vehicle that goes with the same speed as a bullet, and then shoot a bullet the opposite way you're driveing, will that bullet fall to the ground directly?[/QUOTE] not in reality but ignoring almost everything yes

Hah a friend on Facebook wrote this. "I saw a dead person for the first time today. A few moments later my hands were in his chest feeling his heart and lungs. - So awesome." :| [editline]1st October 2011[/editline] I think you all can guess what he's studying.

I had a pretty weird idea in class today, and I doubt it'd even work. But what if we put extremely small amounts of serotonin in most of our foods? Wouldn't that technically make people feel "happier" and thus lower suicide rates, and increase working efficiency rates. Not sure if it'd work.

Well things are already added in our tap water. I think there was a Japanese study showing that areas where either fluorine or lithium was added into the water had lower suicide rates.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;32608318]Well things are already added in our tap water. I think there was a Japanese study showing that areas where either fluorine or lithium was added into the water had lower suicide rates.[/QUOTE] Well if it isn't hurting me, I'm not complaining. Is stuff like that even legal?

[QUOTE=Swebonny;32608318]Well things are already added in our tap water. I think there was a Japanese study showing that areas where either fluorine or lithium was added into the water had lower suicide rates.[/QUOTE] It was lithium, we've all been sipping the fluorine for a while now. On tin foil hattery, would the parabolic structure of a tin foil hat actually magnify (even if minutely) brain EM signals? [editline]4th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=booster;32608285]I had a pretty weird idea in class today, and I doubt it'd even work. But what if we put extremely small amounts of serotonin in most of our foods? Wouldn't that technically make people feel "happier" and thus lower suicide rates, and increase working efficiency rates. Not sure if it'd work.[/QUOTE] Probably not, unless you injected it into the brain directly. Which would be a categorically bad idea.

Simple physics question, but I can't figure it out for some reason. This is the problem I need to solve: [img]http://i.imgur.com/HP2Os.png[/img] I came up with the following energy balance: [i]2 · ( K[sub]trans[/sub] + K[sub]rot[/sub] ) = m · g · h[/i] At the start of the hill, the motorcycle will have translational and rotational energy in both of its wheels and no potential energy. When the motorcycle has reached the maximum height on the hill, all energy will be potential energy in the form of gravitational energy. I proceeded to work out the balance and determinate the unknown quantities. [i]m · v[sup]2[/sup] + I · ω[sup]2[/sup] = m · g · h v = 95 km/h = 26.4 m/s ω = v / r = 26.4 / 0.61 = 43.3 rad/s[/i] Solving for h: [i]h = ( m · v[sup]2[/sup] + I · ω[sup]2[/sup] ) / ( m · g ) = ( 388 · 26.4[sup]2[/sup] + 2.5 · 43.3[sup]2[/sup] ) / ( 388 · 9.80 ) = 72 m[/i] Unfortunately this appeared to be wrong. Where is the gaping hole in my logic?

[QUOTE=Overv;32608615]Simple physics question, but I can't figure it out for some reason. This is the problem I need to solve: [img]http://i.imgur.com/HP2Os.png[/img] I came up with the following energy balance: [i]2 · ( K[sub]trans[/sub] + K[sub]rot[/sub] ) = m · g · h[/i] At the start of the hill, the motorcycle will have translational and rotational energy in both of its wheels and no potential energy. When the motorcycle has reached the maximum height on the hill, all energy will be potential energy in the form of gravitational energy. I proceeded to work out the balance and determinate the unknown quantities. [i]m · v[sup]2[/sup] + I · ω[sup]2[/sup] = m · g · h v = 95 km/h = 26.4 m/s ω = v / r = 26.4 / 0.61 = 43.3 rad/s[/i] Solving for h: [i]h = ( m · v[sup]2[/sup] + I · ω[sup]2[/sup] ) / ( m · g ) = ( 388 · 26.4[sup]2[/sup] + 2.5 · 43.3[sup]2[/sup] ) / ( 388 · 9.80 ) = 72 m[/i] Unfortunately this appeared to be wrong. Where is the gaping hole in my logic?[/QUOTE] I fucking HATE mastering physics. It rarely tells you where you've gone wrong which is fucking annoying. Also, I'm gonna cut someone the next time I get a question with the specification, "answer to two decimal places," then when I answer 'x.yz' it goes, "LOL YOUR ANSWER IS INCORRECT" so you type it in to two SIGNIFICANT FIGURES instead and it FUCKING ACCEPTS IT!

Sooooo glad I've never had to use mastering physics.

physics pfft [quote]It rarely tells you where you've gone wrong [/quote] which is precisely why I chose the social sciences because there is no wrong answer if you ramble on long enough! probably get a b. sc. for fun later, though.

Lol social "sciences"

aka soft sciences that are a bunch of crap.

I really hate my physics class it's super easy right now, but we have so much busywork to do.

I hate my Chem. class in high school right now. FUCKING THREE WEEKS ON SCIENTIFIC NOTATION AND SIGNIFICANT FIGURES. Hopefully we will actually learn chemistry later.

Well you'd better know sig figs and scientific notation like the back of your hand eh

[QUOTE=Contag;32608507] Probably not, unless you injected it into the brain directly. Which would be a categorically bad idea.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.raysahelian.com/serotonin.html]But what if you used this?[/url]

[QUOTE=booster;32635014][url=http://www.raysahelian.com/serotonin.html]But what if you used this?[/url][/QUOTE] We already ingest the precursors and synthesize it ourselves (otherwise we'd, you know, die). There are some studies, but how valid they are is questionable. In any case, it's about as intelligent as putting the entire population on anti-depressants, rather than an as needed basis.

Gotta give a presentation on nuclear magnetic resonance in an hour. Nervous as hell, this shit is difficult.

Picture yourself as Carl Sagan or shit.

We use a magnetic field to align the BILLION AND BILLIONS of protons of our sample.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32638612]Gotta give a presentation on nuclear magnetic resonance in an hour. Nervous as hell, this shit is difficult.[/QUOTE] 5 minutes to go.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32638828]We use a magnetic field to align the BILLION AND BILLIONS of protons of our sample.[/QUOTE] good luck. though i just got muddled up in my head between nmr and epr

Didn't go half bad. The professor was asking groups questions when he wanted more detail or to check if we knew something and he seemed to ask us fewer questions than the rest of the groups. Or at least we answered them quickly.

[QUOTE=sltungle;32619139]I fucking HATE mastering physics. It rarely tells you where you've gone wrong which is fucking annoying. Also, I'm gonna cut someone the next time I get a question with the specification, "answer to two decimal places," then when I answer 'x.yz' it goes, "LOL YOUR ANSWER IS INCORRECT" so you type it in to two SIGNIFICANT FIGURES instead and it FUCKING ACCEPTS IT![/QUOTE] Many times I have thought of traveling all the way to MIT and finding each and every single one of the developers of this god-forsaken soulless thing. Glad I don't have to do that anymore. Now I have to physically turn in written homework at 5 pm every Friday.

I've been wondering lately: what kind of orbital systems could you set up in multiple-star systems? For example, say you had a binary system with two almost equal mass stars (for the purposes of this question assume they have identical mass), could you have a planet weaving between the stars in a figure of 8 shape? Likewise, if I set up a large ring of stars (let's just say 6 of them for the sake of the question) could you get a planet to weave in and out of them in a kind of sinusoidal shaped orbit (so around the front of one star, then around the back of the next star, then around the front of the next star, etc)?

[QUOTE=sltungle;32652122]I've been wondering lately: what kind of orbital systems could you set up in multiple-star systems? For example, say you had a binary system with two almost equal mass stars (for the purposes of this question assume they have identical mass), could you have a planet weaving between the stars in a figure of 8 shape? Likewise, if I set up a large ring of stars (let's just say 6 of them for the sake of the question) could you get a planet to weave in and out of them in a kind of sinusoidal shaped orbit (so around the front of one star, then around the back of the next star, then around the front of the next star, etc)?[/QUOTE] In a binary system it would be possible if you calculated for all variables and had some kind of propulsion system that could move planets. I'm not sure whether it would ever be stable if you had a ring of stars unless perhaps the system was rotating fairly fast. God damn meaty brain unable to visualize forces with 6 stars and a planetary body. [editline]7th October 2011[/editline] The magnetosphere of a six star ring system would be pretty neat.

[QUOTE=Contag;32652175]In a binary system it would be possible if you calculated for all variables and had some kind of propulsion system that could move planets. I'm not sure whether it would ever be stable if you had a ring of stars unless perhaps the system was rotating fairly fast. God damn meaty brain unable to visualize forces with 6 stars and a planetary body. [editline]7th October 2011[/editline] The magnetosphere of a six star ring system would be pretty neat.[/QUOTE] God damn meaty brain (and god damn silicony computers) being unable to calculate for interactions between even THREE bodies. I imagine if 6 stars were spaced out EXACTLY around a circle and had IDENTICAL masses that the system would be in a very, very unstable equilibrium, but the introduction of a planet orbiting them would eventually throw the system out of equilibrium and fuck the whole thing up (although it'd probably take a fairly long time to completely mess things up). And damn right the magnetosphere would be neat. Hell, the magnetosphere of a ONE star system (see the Solar System) is pretty fucking neat looking.

I wish I had a working knowledge of general relativity. I was thinking earlier. Imagine you have a very small man, Mr. Point A falling towards a planet. Through the planet's core is a shaft through which Mr. Point A can see another man, Mr. Point B, falling towards the planet from the opposite side. Both Mr. Point A and Mr. Point B claim to be in an inertial reference frame, and yet each one claims to measure an acceleration between himself and the other. How does GR resolve that? [editline]6th October 2011[/editline] Well I'm gonna be stuck at a friend's for 5 hours later, maybe I'll bring my GR textbook and study up on it.

Couldn't find an answer on this when I google'd it (or I'm just a shit googler) But, what would happen if you were inside a room at the exact centre of the earth? (that could somehow withstand the heat and pressure) How would gravity affect you there?

Assuming you're very small you wouldn't feel anything.