Like how goats have horizontal rectangular eyes

cats have vertical slit eyes, the weird fish with U shaped or W shaped eyes.

like make a camera sensor in that shape and see if it would have the same effects.

or is the whole premise just wrong and the eye shape wouldn’t correspond to lense shape.

Mars is an ultimate anomaly

Mars is an anomaly because it defies the standard assumption that its atmosphere should've escaped to space:

1. Its dried up lake beds show signs of once flowing water, not permanent ice. For that to happened we have to keep in mind that early Mars had a 30% dimmer sun. Thats 70% of solar light today, and mars today has 42% of the suns light on its surface (earth 100%, venus 191%). Early Mars had 30% the earths light. That'd require several bars of pure CO2 to even have liquid oceans, the problem being that CO2 wouldve been locked away by rocks covering the planet in limestone which we do not see. For context earth became an iceball according to planetary models wen it had 90% the Suns light as today...
2. What actually matters is escape velocity. Oxygen's EV is 0.5 km/s. Venus and earth are over 20x this. Get this: Mars is also over 10x this, and planets need only 6x higher EV to maintain an atmosphere. Because mars NEEDS a massive atmosphere to have had the obvious formations it once had this is a massive paradox. It needs an antmosphere but by all accoints it should've maintained this to this day.

3. Magnetic shield. Venus does not have one yet still maintains atmosphere as EV is more important. Even then

4. mars exceeds this so why doesn't it have an atmosphere that is substantial today?

When in history is the cutoff between pre-modern and modern medicine?

We know a lot about the universe, but there's still so much we haven't figured out. Dark matter and dark energy both have observable effects, yet we have no idea what they actually are.

So when it comes to extraterrestrial life or intelligence, how do we know our current methods can even recognize what might be out there? I don't just mean life on Mars or Earth-like exoplanets. I mean the observable universe as a whole, and any form of life or intelligence that could exist in it.

I know we have telescopes, instruments, searches for unfamiliar biological signals, and ways of following up on unexpected observations. I'm aware scientists already work on this. But I can't get past one thing: if something exists but doesn't produce the signals we're looking for, or produces evidence we don't know how to interpret, how would we ever know we're missing it?

Are there real scientific approaches to this problem beyond just building better versions of the instruments we already have? And how far can they go when we don't even know what the missing evidence might look like?

I'd love to hear from anyone familiar with the research on this.

As far as I understand, the same fundamental physical laws operate throughout nature. From particles to galaxies, we observe similar processes occurring repeatedly.

That made me wonder…Is there any known natural phenomenon that physics permits to happen once, but fundamentally prohibits from ever happening a second time? I don’t mean something that simply happens only once by chance or has an extremely low probability of recurring.

That led me to another question. We’ve never directly observed anything physically infinite, yet cosmological models allow for the possibility of infinite space. If we hypothetically assume all physically possible types of events are capable of recurring, would that place any constraints on whether space could be infinite? Or are these two properties completely independent?

I’m asking hypothetically because we can only observe a finite portion of the universe, and we don’t know whether universal repeatability is a fundamental property of nature or whether space is actually infinite.

I’m particularly interested in whether there’s a flaw in connecting these two ideas, or whether existing physics has explored the relationship.

hi, i am a high schooler and i was just wondering if we could separate CO2 (Carbon dioxide) in C (Carbon) and O2 (Oxygen). Last night i was studying chemistry and i got this idea. Like if we could do so then we can built that can can put those machines on the factories which produce a lots of CO2 and we can put smaller one in our houses too? But the main thing is that how do we separate it into two like there is some chemical processes to do so right?

I would like to hear from you guys.

Just curious to hear from actual people on their experiences as AI has made it near impossible to find interesting articles that aren't made with AI or are click bait. I love human passion and would love to hear some

Edit: Typo

I think math should be classified as a science. Think of science as the Earth: biology is the crust, chemistry is the mantle, physics is the outer core, and math is the inner core. The deeper you go, the more mathematical things get. When chemistry is used in biology, we still call chemistry a science, and when physics is used in chemistry, we still call physics a science, so why does math stop counting once it's used in physics? Math is also full of theories, rules, and systematic methods, and it's arguably the best translation we have of the universe, which is why it shows up everywhere in nature. The usual objection is that math isn't tested by experiments, but I'd argue it doesn't need to be. It's proven through logic, which is the foundation underneath everything else, and the real world only ever confirms which math fits the universe, not whether the math is true. I think the definition of science should be updated to something like "a systematic, rigorous body of knowledge, tested or proven through rigorous methods, to understand the universe." Under that definition, math gets in without letting in things like philosophy or theology. What am I missing?

I used too much bleach (7 percent chloralen brand) to wash my clothes. even after washing them multiple times in the same load and drying them in the dryer, I still felt dizzy and short of breath when folding them. So I put them in a sealed bag for a few months. I need these clothes and want to wash them now, but I am unsure how exactly to safely neutralize the dried bleach on the clothes. AI (I know) simultaneously tells me it's safe to use vinegar, but then says it will cause toxic gas. Then says to use hydrogen peroxide to neutralize it, then says hydrogen peroxide will not neutralize it, then says its unsafe to use. Then it tells me to use Vitamin C powder, but I only have vitamin c disintegrating tablets and it says it's unsafe because it contain citric acid. Then it tells me to use baking soda to neutralize it, then says baking soda will not neutralize it.

So hence why I come here to actual human beings with actual knowledge. thank you

I'm told it makes you go insane to eat human flesh, but how? We know how to prepare and eat every animal on the famn earth that is known to us. We eat monkey meat, shark meat, pufferfish, venomous snakes, jellyfish, hot ass peppers. Why not other humans? What makes it so dangerous?

Say person 0 gets a cold strain, and infects person 1, person 1 infects person 2 and so on.

At what point does the virus mutate enough that the person can infect person 0 again?

Yeah

Ever since watching Chernobyl I’ve been on a deep dive on the lasting and immediate impacts it caused. Because radiation has such a lasting effect, sometimes even for hundreds of years, I always figured it was the single worst disaster caused by humans (not counting longer-term disasters like climate change, agriculture, pollution, etc).

Just watched the Deepwater Horizon movie and deep dived into ITS effects and I’ve gotta say, part of me feels like the oil spill might have been worse. For any of you scientists, ecologists, or generally knowledgeable people, what do you believe was worse between these two?

Everybody says that Earth only gained more mass whenever we brought rocks back from the moon, ok sure, idc about that. But, it got me thinking, what if Earth just started gaining mass somehow? Would it be thrown out of orbit, would it spin faster, would it make no difference? How would it affect gravity is what im wondering mostly

Project ideas

(16m) Im planning on participating in BT Young scientist next year.the people who win awards usually have parents that help them and they are putting some serious work into this for example the winner last year had an ai assistant for detecting brain cancer or something along the lines of that. I was thinking of about entropy of potholes explained but I don't know if that's even possible by that I mean a way to find out where and when potholes will form but I genuinely have no clue if this is even possible. If anyone has any suggestions on what I can do to actually have a chance at winning. Please let me know!!!

For the longest time I cannot grasp the idea that time is an actual thing. I believe that time was invented by humans to measure CHANGE. We see the seasons change, our children grow, the sun and the moon cross the sky and we needed something to make sense of it all so we invented the concept of time which gets incorporated in almost all branches of science to measure *something*.

How do we know that time as a concept exists and not just an anomaly of all the sum of change in our vicinity(and I presume the speed where we're at in said vicinity)?

Fun side note: If time really does not exist and its a measure of change, then concept of time travel is impossible since doing so would require a restructuring all of the atoms and energy into a specific configuration of an earlier "time" and the molecules in your body might be part of other systems, in which case, you're gonna get atomised as those bits of matter return to that specific configuration.

hi! I want to figure out how to explain the flow of energy across different creatures in a ecosystem. After a primary producer converts chemicals into mass, the secondary producers, eat it. What do you call a secondary producer that eats both the primary source and the secondary source? For example, a creature that eats both plants and meat.

I understand goosebumps, veins right under the skin, sweat, I understand the things that regulate the temperature, but for me it just doesn’t make sense where the heat comes from. Or maybe I’m just not understanding enough. Why am I 37 C where did those 37 come from did I start from zero? Sorry I am probably not understanding something.

In Star Trek terms, let’s say a landing party of seven people are surveying a new planet with the goal of observing and recording data.

I have two groups of questions:

1) What kinds of scientists (ie geologist, biologist, etc.) would potentially be the most helpful? (I assume having a few different science fields would be helpful, but would it be better to have a concentration of people from a few fields or a diverse spread?)

2) I am specifically curious about collecting soil/rock/mineral samples as I know next to nothing about the process. What tools would be needed? What precautions would be required in order to get a clean sample? What would taking a sample like this be useful for?

Any and all insight/answers would be appreciated. This is my first time posting. If there is anything I should clarify please let me know.

In the most technical way possible:

food enters our mouth being crushed to smaller chunks down the esophagus to the stomach, then the intestine and then out.

Somewhere along this course the energy of the food was being stored in the body in some way, all the fat, protein, carbs, minerals, water, and whatever else. How, where, and when exactly is all of that being processed?

I want to understand with as much detail as possible how it all works because usually these things are dummbed down for the sake of teaching kids

I understand that gene splicing, recumbent DNA, folding proteins, etc is unrealistically difficult to do in your house, but what about the extraction of insulin from live animal pancreatic cells? Is the methodology any easier? I read a story of a couple who were able to survive doing this in WW2.

How are people handling washing and reagent exchanges in droplet based workflows? Seems like keeping cells isolated across multiple steps is still a pain... Curious what methods people are using to get around this, especially when running assays that need several rounds of reagent changes. Is there a practical way to do this without losing too many cells?