The Official "Quick Question" Thread

[5614]

it might compress the bodies, but how would it compress gravity? gravity is a force, not a physical thing to get compressed.

 

(although maybe im just misunderstaning the question)

[jsatan]

right' date=' as i've always been told that is true.... however, wouldnt that change with height?

 

e.g if you are a long way below sea level compared to on the top of mount everest, the height different is quite big and one being so much close to the center of earth and gravity, does this figure not change then????

 

the reason i say it might is, as we know, if you travelled (in a rocket) out of the earths atmosphere and so on then you would no long feel the earth's gravity, so distance seems to effect the force of gravity, so therefore doesnt the difference between mt everest and under sea level effect that figure?[/quote']

 

lol. and it will also change if you on the poles, and the equator.

 

also the weather at the time will change it, lol.

 

but that is just getting out of control.

[5614]

also the weather at the time will change it

 

oh no its wouldnt! it might effect your fall speed as it is a resistive force (assuming it is moving against you) but it would not effect gravity itself.

 

i spose if you were at the poles/equator that'd be the same thing with being different distances from the center of the earth...?

[jsatan]

I talking about the weight of something,

 

you have a centrifugal force at the equator which is spinning out, but not at the poles.

 

As for weather, ever tried to weight air?

you need a vacuum to do this,

[jdurg]

right' date=' as i've always been told that is true.... however, wouldnt that change with height?

 

e.g if you are a long way below sea level compared to on the top of mount everest, the height different is quite big and one being so much close to the center of earth and gravity, does this figure not change then????

 

the reason i say it might is, as we know, if you travelled (in a rocket) out of the earths atmosphere and so on then you would no long feel the earth's gravity, so distance seems to effect the force of gravity, so therefore doesnt the difference between mt everest and under sea level effect that figure?

[/quote']

 

I'm assuming that by 'under sea level' you mean a point which is below 'sea level' but not under water, right? Since if you're under water, the bouyency effect of water will greatly affect your observed weight.

[5614]

"I'm assuming that by 'under sea level' you mean a point which is below 'sea level' "- that is correct

 

As for weather' date=' ever tried to weight air?

you need a vacuum to do this,[/quote']

sorry, i still dont follow... are you saying that weather or wind effects gravity??? if so, why?

[jsatan]

"I'm assuming that by 'under sea level' you mean a point which is below 'sea level' "- that is correct

 

 

sorry' date=' i still dont follow... are you saying that weather or wind effects gravity??? if so, why?[/quote']

 

 

Read my post again, IM NOT TALKING ABOUT GRAVITY. I'm talking about weight, is that really that hard to understand, I've said this once.

[5614]

IM NOT TALKING ABOUT GRAVITY. I'm talking about weight

 

OHHHHHHHHHHHH..... oops! sorry about that... my mistake!

 

moving on swiftly....

 

where are those pics of the green laser?

[YT2095]

since this is the One Stop Shop for quick questions.

after reading some of the "did we evolve from monkeys" thread and some of the debate there.

 

I`de like to know what the the 1`st plants were and how they evolved. nothing too detailed, just an overall idea and maybe a few names I can research myself.

 

Cheerz

[MolecularMan14]

from what Ive heard from the heterotroph hypothesis, plants autotrophs evolved from heterotrophs. Im not exactly sure about the track of evolution that came from and after that, so i might suggest doing a search on the heterotroph hypothesis.

[MolecularMan14]

I have a quick question that may spur into a full thread, but at this point, it's still just a quick one.

Do scientists know what causes Parkinson's? If so, what causes it? If not, what are their hypothesis on how it happens?

Thanks much

[Drug addict]

Dopamine is involved in control of movement and Parkinson's disease is caused by loss of nigro-striatal dopaminergic neurones. This causes the main symptom of PD, lack of control over movement. Evidence supporting this is provided by the parkinsonian symptoms that may be produced by drugs which antagonise dopamine such as antipsychotics (e.g. chlorpromazine) or by amphetamines. There was also the case of the frozen addict (see this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7787 or search for MPTP).

 

Incidence increases with age, but the causes of Parkinson's disease are unknown. Factors that have been implicated are environmental insults (eg MPTP), genetic factors and ageing.

 

Treatment is usually with levodopa, a precursor of dopamine, in combination with a peripheral decarboxylase inhibitor to reduced the dose of levodopa needed.

[ydoaPs]

is there enough density in uranium ores in mines to be globally dangerous? i mean, explosion in canada starts gigantic nuclear reaction?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I really doubt it. The actual fissionable uranium is only a small percentage of all of the uranium in the ore, and also, the uranium in the ore is not concentrated either.

[ydoaPs]

so, you can die from a carreer as a miner, but not from a small boom becoming a big boom?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Or, at least, you can be sterilized from mining uranium...

[5614]

Or, at least, you can be sterilized from mining uranium...

yeah, steralise you by putting you through a gamma radiation machine.... that sounds like fun

[swansont]

is there enough density in uranium ores in mines to be globally dangerous? i mean, explosion in canada starts gigantic nuclear reaction?

 

Not for about two billion years, and explsions are a much more complex problem than a "simple" chain reaction. The Oklo reactor in Gabon was a natural uranium reactor, back when the U-235 abundance was high enough to sustain the reaction.

[swansont]

I really doubt it. The actual fissionable uranium is only a small percentage of all of the uranium in the ore, and also, the uranium in the ore is not concentrated either.

 

Fissile. All of the uranium is fissionable - capable of undergoing fission. But it's the U-235 that is fissile, or capable of a sustained chain reaction.

[5614]

here's a quick question, hope someone looks here!

 

if you have a ballon full of hydrogen and ignite it it will blow up

 

if you ignite the H given off by an experiement, say Mg + HCl then it will not blow up

 

why is this? is it to do with quantities of the gas?

[YT2095]

CM^3 of gass potential.

 

the balloon has considerably more hydrogen at its disposal all at once, than the misserable quanties given off in an Mg HCl(aq) reaction.

[YT2095]

here`s another quicky:

 

what`s the difference between Psychology and Psychiatry?

[5614]

the spelling!!!... nah...

 

Psycology: scientific study of human/animal behavior

Psychiatry: diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders/conditions

[5614]

ok...

 

when you write a chemical symbol like Mg you could write Mg (s) coz Mg is a solid... H2O is a liquid so (l)? but (aq) is sumin disolved in water... so how would you write H2O (??)..... prob (l) but im not 100% sure!?!?!?

[Auburngirl05]

here`s another quicky:

 

what`s the difference between Psychology and Psychiatry?

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certian psychiatrists are considered MDs, while psychologists aren't. I think psychiatrists, in practice, do more with serious disorders such as schizophrenia, while in general psychologists do more counseling and other things. That brings to mind a question of my own, can psychologists prescribe drugs? I know that psychiatrists can, but I wasn't certain if both could.