SCIENCE!!!

[Markarthian]

Not 99% luke, but still the vast majority. Also, anyone have any ideas how black holes are able to send out radiation? Because appearently they're better at turning matter into energy than the sun.

They don't, that's the funny thing. The super hot gas around the event horizon is what gets sent out as radiation.

[lukeb28]

But it does not mean that larger mass doesn't result in higher velocities )

Thats what I was trying to say. They are going faster than they should therefore there is unaccounted mass. Thats the whole bases of dark matter.

Not 99% luke, but still the vast majority. Also, anyone have any ideas how black holes are able to send out radiation? Because appearently they're better at turning matter into energy than the sun.

I answered that a little while ago, lets see if I can find that post.

Edit: Found it:

They also slowly shrink as tiny subatomic particles pop in and out of space. These particles are always made in two's and are opposite in every way. When these pop in at the event horizon the antimatter particle falls in destroying some matter in the core with it while the other partical escapes as radiation. This stuff is just way too cool!!

[ThunderCats9]

This Is Science

Nature of Scientific Communication

Sharing the results of scientific experiments is one of the most important aspects of science. Early scientists shared their observations and results in open letters to their colleagues that were hand copied and passed from person to person. Pretty soon, scientists developed better ways of sharing their results with each other, and our current knowledge of science and the world around us is dependent upon current scientists sharing their results.

Scientists share their discoveries with each other in several ways. Informally, scientific colleagues may call or email each other about their latest research. But once the experiments have been done and the analysis carried out, a scientist needs to share this new information with a wider audience in a more formal manner. Other scientists can then find this information to help them design their own experiments, to put their own research in context, and to add to our knowledge of the world.

One of the most common ways for scientists to formally share their research is to publish a “journal article.” The journal article is a part of the formal written record of the scientific process, and you’ve probably come across them before.

A typical scholarly, scientific journal article (aka “ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE” or “PRIMARY RESEARCH ARTICLE”) is PEER REVIEWED (more on this later), discusses the authors’ original research, offers thoughtful analysis of the results, and cites relevant papers from other authors that relate to the research.

A slightly different type of journal article (called a “REVIEW ARTICLE”) will not report on original research, but will outline the current state of research in a particular field, citing the appropriate literature and connecting the various pieces of research together. Review articles are generally peer reviewed.

Review articles and original research articles can often look the same at first glance, and most search engines or databases won’t tell you what type of an article it is. To tell them apart, you need to identify whether the authors are discussing their own research and experiments or someone else’s. Often, the “Materials and methods” section (aka “Experimental procedures” or something similar) will be your best clue. This section is occasionally stored online, separate from the article as a part of the “supplementary materials”.

If the authors are discussing research and experiments that they carried out, and giving you an outline of the experiment, it will be an original research article.

Both type of journal articles can be found online and/or in print.

When you are searching for information on a research topic, you may also run across some other types of information. Shorter news articles (1-2 pages) may appear in some scientific and popular publications reporting on recent developments in a particular field, or reporting on a particular piece of research. These news articles are not peer reviewed, and are normally written by science journalists, not researchers. The news articles may be easier to read, but since they are normally one or two steps removed from the original research, a news article may not be the best source for your paper or project. However, news articles can lead you to a piece of original research, and can help you easily stay informed about recent research developments.

If you conduct your searches online, via Google, Yahoo or another popular search engine, you may find journal articles, but you may also come across other scientific information that can take many forms. Wikis, blogs and personal websites can often contain a lot of scientific information, but these resources are generally very far removed from the original research where the ideas were first developed. Each of these sources needs to be evaluated very carefully to determine if the information is credible, and these sources won’t be suitable for a research paper. There is a lot of great scientific information on the web, but there is also a lot of bad science, pseudo-science, and non-science-pretending-to-be-science available and distinguishing them can be tricky.

Peer Review

Peer review is the process that allows scientists to trust the reliability of published journal articles. Here’s how it works:

1. A scientist submits an article to a journal saying “please publish this article.”
   
2. The journal finds 2 or 3 people who know a lot about the research topic, called REVIEWERS or REFEREES, and asks them to look at the article.
   
3. The reviewers look at the article carefully. They check to see if the experiment is designed and conducted well, they look at the analysis of the data, they see whether the conclusions are justified by the data, and they make sure the article can be understood by other scientists. They also make a judgment about how “important” the article is. Some journals only accept really innovative and important research, other journals accept research that advances the field just a little bit.
   
4. The reviewers say “yes, we should publish this article”, “no, we shouldn’t publish this article” or “if the author makes some changes, maybe we should publish this article”
   
5. If the article is published, we can say that it has been PEER REVIEWED.
   

Scientists rely on their colleagues, the reviewers, to make sure that good science is given a wide audience and that not-so-good science stays out of the science journals. Because blogs, wikis and personal websites don’t automatically have this expert filter, you have to do a lot more digging to determine if the information is reliable.

The only way to tell if a journal article has been peer reviewed is to look for information about the journal itself, normally on the publishers website. Most databases won’t indicate if an article is peer reviewed or not.

Omg that took a looooong time to type. Hope You Think I Should Be A Scientist

[ThunderCats9]

Oh Dark Matter LOL Totally different thing looks like I wasted my time although I like Science topics a lot so I might be on this forum thread again.

[M-C]

Other science topic, I have a question: chemistry, how come some of the lanthanides have an electron in the 5d orbital instead of the 4f?

EDIT: nvm, I was told about the similarities in energy levels between the two suborbitals with the lanthanides.

[Industrial Miner]

Could someone explain why sulfate has a charge of ²- when oxide and sulfide both have a charge of ²-? Shouldn't it really be a charge of 10-? Or is it that the oxygen and sulfur have a valence bond?

[lukeb28]

Ah. Chemistry, never was that good at it. Call me once we go back to astrophysics.

[Markarthian]

Could someone explain why sulfate has a charge of ²- when oxide and sulfide both have a charge of ²-? Shouldn't it really be a charge of 10-? Or is it that the oxygen and sulfur have a valence bond?

Yeah, that's the case. It's not a bipolar binding but a covalent one.

[Industrial Miner]

Ahh, thanks. Having a test next week and that was the only question that I didn't get.

[Kocken926]

Anyone here have any thought on how to transport oneself in space without using gravity or losing mass? Like with just electricity?

[lukeb28]

Solar sails or photon engines would work. On my phone atm so just Google it as I dont want to spend an hour typing out how they work.

[Lethosos]

I had this idea for Rifting--basically pulling part of the fabric of space/time towards your location, then letting go while riding the bit that was pulled. The fact that it seems to "open" a rift is pretty much casualty going nuts, with the space in between is pretty much the universe going by in a static haze while riding that effect. :D

[SimpleGuy]

A question that has been bugging me is why the heck did the Russians tip the RBMK reactors' control rods with graphite back in the day as that would just make the axial peaking factors ridiculous as far as I can tell, and that's honestly what made the infamous positive void coefficient for reactivity so... well, infamous.

[Neowulf]

A question that has been bugging me is why the heck did the Russians tip the RBMK reactors' control rods with graphite back in the day as that would just make the axial peaking factors ridiculous as far as I can tell, and that's honestly what made the infamous positive void coefficient for reactivity so... well, infamous.

Lesovik hate graphite maybe?

I do believe you take the technobabble crown.

[Lethosos]

Well, wait, what kind of reactor? If it was a pebble bed reactor, I can understand why. Graphite is a form of compressed carbon/lead (since this is Russia, it's actual lead, heh,) and would not be a bad choice to protect the ends of the rods as they sink into the pebble bed.

[holymage!]

i have been lurking here for the past bit....thinking i was smart being the only one in my physics 11 class that got relativity.....i feel extremely stupid now

anyways....how about that FTL/hyperspace/warp drive NASA is working on?

pretty cool from what i have learned so far....

[lukeb28]

NASA? Ya right. Their dead now, it's all private industry now.

[holymage!]

NASA? Ya right. Their dead now, it's all private industry now.

haha

well....the title does say NASA is working on it so....

[Markarthian]

NASA? Ya right. Their dead now, it's all private industry now.

Wut? I don't remember it being dead? Is it a privatised organisation now? Or do you mean that NASA's funds are reduced?

[lukeb28]

Wut? I don't remember it being dead? Is it a privatised organisation now? Or do you mean that NASA's funds are reduced?

Their funds are well below what it takes to effectively run a space program. Their not gone off the face of the earth but they may as well be for the amount of work their doing now. Right now their only projects are pretty much managing unmanned missions like the mars rovers and other space probes.

haha

well....the title does say NASA is working on it so....

They may well be but they won't make any meaningful progress. Private industry is the new leader into space.

[TheBytemaster]

So... black holes. Wouldn't it be interesting if we could strip the event horizon away from a black hole and expose the singularity?

[lukeb28]

So... black holes. Wouldn't it be interesting if we could strip the event horizon away from a black hole and expose the singularity?

So temporarily null it's gravity to light can escape?

[Milk]

Where would all that light go? Must be a pretty brilliant sight.

[holymage!]

Where would all that light go? Must be a pretty brilliant sight.

no one really knows if i recall correctly, some people says it defies physics and things in a black hole just vanish....poof...gone....

and some people think that there is a wormhole inside the blackhole and "teleports" it to the otherside....

now i am thinking about stargate....Thanks guys...i am trying to go to bed....jeeezzz

[Markarthian]

no one really knows if i recall correctly, some people says it defies physics and things in a black hole just vanish....poof...gone....

and some people think that there is a wormhole inside the blackhole and "teleports" it to the otherside....

now i am thinking about stargate....Thanks guys...i am trying to go to bed....jeeezzz

It is definitely not a "poof gone" thing: that has been proven not to be the case. (Articles about that found in: nature, science, NWT and NOT google, but google scholar)

About the wormholes, no one knows exactly how strong the spacetimedilitation of a black hole really is. If it is a wormhole, it needs to break Einstein and thus have like a gap in spacetime. The only way a black hole might achieve this is with a tremendous amount of mass. Now luckily that is present in a black hole. But another thing needed may, or may not be existent in a black hole which is required to keep it open and stable: negative energy (in -Joules).

Negative energy has been created once before on earth in an experiment, so it might exist out there... But, like with the Majorana particle it has been created using a workaround... The Majorana particle is It's own counterpart, it annihilates with a particle of the same kind. The Majorana particle was created using a gap (an unoccupied space in a see of electrons, creating an effective positive particle) and an electron. Those two annihilate, tadaa: a Majorana particle... That's not really a Majorana particle, now is it?