• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Craziest Science Question

M

Montez

Guest
That has been answered, or that has yet to be? I always am sorta amazed by what stuff pops up here and there, and even if we don't have a hoverboard yet...come on scientists, there is some awesome stuff going down. So, what in your opinion is the craziest thing science has done/explained, or what should it get off it's ass and finally answer?
 

Arcana

career lurker
Actually we kinda already do have hoverboards.

There's really too much for me to say what the craziest thing science has explained or proved is, but I think that space exploration is going well and has a lot of potential, if only it would get some more funding.
 

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
I am so fucking skeptical about that.
I'll keep my money in my pocket, thank you very much. There's too many large scale, industrial implementations this technology could be used for to make actual money instad of the fuckin' toy-tech department.

To be fair, that looks more like a proof-of-concept project than a prototype for a commercial product.
 

Arcana

career lurker
I am so fucking skeptical about that.
I'll keep my money in my pocket, thank you very much. There's too many large scale, industrial implementations this technology could be used for to make actual money instad of the fuckin' toy-tech department.

I mean, yeah, it's not really that feasible as an everyday hoverboard, but hey, it exists.
 

Syk

Neon Wuff
I think it's best to give it about 5-15 years before it gets to the point of having something very feasible as a generally all terrain skateboard. I think the trend with that hovering skateboard may follow how segways came to be somewhat more common over the years, moving from niche to more 'practical' usage over time.
 

Athena

bruh
I'm not sure that I see a ton of practicality with segways, besides indoor use or with middle-aged tour groups. What else are they specifically good for? I feel like in most cases bikes or just being on foot would be better.
 

Oreo

Oreo
I'm not sure that I see a ton of practicality with segways, besides indoor use or with middle-aged tour groups. What else are they specifically good for? I feel like in most cases bikes or just being on foot would be better.

But then you loose the cool nerd factor of having a segway
 

Syk

Neon Wuff
I'm not sure that I see a ton of practicality with segways, besides indoor use or with middle-aged tour groups. What else are they specifically good for? I feel like in most cases bikes or just being on foot would be better.
That's kinda why I added quotes around practical. I didn't mean that it is more practical than other stuff, I meant that they're using it in a more practical rather than recreational way. Just like security in public spaces and personnel in offices or airports.
 

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
I'm not sure that I see a ton of practicality with segways, besides indoor use or with middle-aged tour groups. What else are they specifically good for? I feel like in most cases bikes or just being on foot would be better.

Mall cops p much.
 

WolfNightV4X1

King of Kawaii; That Token Femboy
Regarding hoverboards I did see somewhere that we do have them...the way it works in the one I've seen is it works by magnetism in which the surface it glides on has the opposite polarity of the hoverboard itself so it repels the board and causes it to float.

Edit: Someone already linked Hendo, should've read that...but another article doesnt hurt

SOURCE http://mobile.extremetech.com/lates....34.mobile-heirloom-serp..6.2.605.3FzyvQn4iRA

The practical use is really interesting, assuming we can actually have structurally sound buildings through magnetic levitation it would be helpful in the event of Earthquakes. So hoverboard technology, besides being really freaking rad, does have some good technological implications. Although the pitfalls do seem that the expense in making them far outweigh it's application, so until then hoverboards through magnetic levitation wont quite take off.

Otherwise...my favorite thingI learned science is working on is 3D printing...and more importantly...3D printing in the medical field. The fact that we could probably replicate and 'print' entire dermal layers is amazing and would definitely help for patients and would be a better alternative to skin grafting.
 
Last edited:

DammitMax

Max Fally
Oh I have a good science question! If stars are big balls of fires how are they burning out in space without oxygen since fire needs oxygen to burn? I dunno I might just be dumb but I've always been curious about it.
 

Phyllostachys

Feigning intelligence
Oh I have a good science question! If stars are big balls of fires how are they burning out in space without oxygen since fire needs oxygen to burn? I dunno I might just be dumb but I've always been curious about it.

Combustion and nuclear fusion are two different phenomenon.
 

Astus

Well Known Foxxo
What is commonly called a combustion reaction is when oxygen is used to oxidize an organic molecule and break it down into a more stable form which releases a large amount heat energy which is mostly in the form of heat and light (fire) but also transfers some of that energy into sound and other forms of energy.

Nuclear fusion is when two atoms/molecules are heated so much that they pass through the forces of opposite attraction and get close enough to be pulled together by strong nuclear force. Our sun is mostly composed of hydrogen which fuses with other hydrogen to form helium. When the molecules undergo this process a small portion of their matter is converted into energy and if you know e=mc^2 you know that even a little bit of mass can turn into a lot of energy, especially when millions of atoms are doing it at one time. This energy is released in heat, light, and other various forms of radiation from x-rays to gamma rays. What eventually happens with stars our size is that they keep fusing atoms until they get to iron, which takes way too much heat to fuse together, which causes fusion to slow. When fusion slows the temperature decrease which causes the gravitational f o race that started this to pull in causing the molecules to build up even more heat and the higher level elements are made. After fusion loses out the gravitational force pushes all the atoms together and the sun suddenly expands in a huge ball and gives out the last bit of its energy before it turns to a white dwarf and slowly dies out. This is for our sun btw
 

Chuchi

Where'd the time go?
What eventually happens with stars our size is that they keep fusing atoms until they get to iron, which takes way too much heat to fuse together, which causes fusion to slow.
I can't remember what documentary I watched, but I remember having this like... moment of great awe when it came to this part. There was a lot of grandiose simplification, but it basically was saying that the moment a star creates iron in the core during fusion, it's doomed. And what got me was the general thought of how people are so fascinated with gold and silver and platinum. And poor iron is chilling over here, responsible for the death of a star. I dunno, but to me that was a very 'whooooaaaaaaa' moment.

Not that how gold and other heavy metals is less interesting or anything, but it's iron. You don't see people going bonkers over it.

Although, and not sure on this, but as I recall it, if the star is of sufficient mass and the core is hot enough that iron occurs in fusion (sparking the decline of the fusion), I thought that meant that gravitational collapse resulted in a supernova? I dunno, could be mistaken.
 

Astus

Well Known Foxxo
@chuchi I know in order for a star to supernova it has to be massive enough. Though I too don't really recall if iron is the direct cause of it. I know not all stars reach the iron core but I am pretty sure that it can have an iron core and not supernova
 

Chuchi

Where'd the time go?
@chuchi I know in order for a star to supernova it has to be massive enough. Though I too don't really recall if iron is the direct cause of it. I know not all stars reach the iron core but I am pretty sure that it can have an iron core and not supernova
I am genuinely not trying to argue with you, just to be clear, and I am not 100% myself, just going off my memory. Which, HAHA, can fucking fail me at times.

But, as I recall it, a star has to be of certain mass and the core of certain heat in order to create iron. And then, when it does, obviously, it continues to do so and it starts 'chugging' so to speak. And the integrity of the core begins to fail as the gravity becomes imbalanced and then it collapses and goes supernova. I might be wrong in it, and I'm about to head to bed so I won't check for myself, but I'm pretty sure that iron cores go to supernova .. I wanna say most of the time.

Smaller masses don't reach certain heats and thus don't create certain fusions in the core or something along those lines. Those types go the route you described, ending up as white dwarfs, but I guess there's a chance of some random anomalies as well. And then those just kinda simmer out over time.

And then there's... neutron stars that had a certain mass and certain heat but didn't create iron in the core so they ended up being ridiculously dense or something... I can't remember exactly. But those are pretty cool too. \o/

In the event that I am incorrect, I apologize in advance. I'm not trying to stir the pot, just offering what I am fairly certain to be correct. Although I realize I might not be, and in the event of such, I will gracefully go throw myself off the roof. I mean, gracefully accept that and change my knowledge accordingly. C:
 

MalletFace

The slave of the Jlfksjlfl
Banned
@chuchi I know in order for a star to supernova it has to be massive enough. Though I too don't really recall if iron is the direct cause of it. I know not all stars reach the iron core but I am pretty sure that it can have an iron core and not supernova

A star can become massive enough that its core begins to change its element going up through the periodic table from its starting point at hydrogen/helium. As far as I'm aware, iron fusion in the core does not put out enough energy to resist the star's gravity so it just collapses. Iron can't react as heavily as something farther down the periodic table.

On the topic, though, I feel that it is crazy that we can hypothesize laws and constants about our existence and have them so quickly devolve into uselessness in some situations. My favorite instance of this is the information we lose when matter enters a black hole. At its simplest, we can observe matter falling into a black hole, but we cannot latter prove that that matter fell into the black hole through what we may currently observe of the black hole. I would love this problem to be understood and agreed upon.

Edit.

But, as I recall it, a star has to be of certain mass and the core of certain heat in order to create iron. And then, when it does, obviously, it continues to do so and it starts 'chugging' so to speak. And the integrity of the core begins to fail as the gravity becomes imbalanced and then it collapses and goes supernova. I might be wrong in it, and I'm about to head to bed so I won't check for myself, but I'm pretty sure that iron cores go to supernova .. I wanna say most of the time.

Iron cores should always go supernova, as far as I remember. The core just becomes inert and dead because iron really can't undergo that type of reaction. I believe this falls under Type II supernovae. The core can't "hold up" the star so it just falls in on itself.

Other types of core (magnesium-based cores, for example) will lead to the same thing, but I think the iron core is pretty common for these.
 
Last edited:

Chuchi

Where'd the time go?
On the topic, though, I feel that it is crazy that we can hypothesize laws and constants about our existence and have them so quickly devolve into uselessness in some situations. My favorite instance of this is the information we lose when matter enters a black hole. At its simplest, we can observe matter falling into a black hole, but we cannot latter prove that that matter fell into the black hole through what we may currently observe of the black hole. I would love this problem to be understood and agreed upon.

Ohhhhhhhyesssss. This is so... uh... I don't wanna say mindboggling but... fucking super cool awesome should suffice. And how if something were to be observed falling, at a certain point its timeline (so to say) slows and stretches, so our perception of the object is that it's stretching as it's getting pulled in, but then the reality is that it's already fallen through technically or something like that. That's just... so frickin' cool.

Iron cores should always go supernova, as far as I remember. The core just becomes inert and dead because iron really can't undergo that type of reaction. I believe this falls under Type II supernovae. The core can't "hold up" the star so it just falls in on itself.

Other types of core (magnesium-based cores, for example) will lead to the same thing, but I think the iron core is pretty common for these.

Yeah, that's kinda what I meant by 'integrity', just couldn't make the words string together proper in my head. That's pretty cool, though, that other cores can lead to the same or similar end. I did not know that, so TIL.
It's just so cool that iron, which most people are like 'eh whatever, iron, sure' killed a star and we have it inside of us, helping us breathe and shit.

That is... so metal. /badpun
 
Top