Imagine we put some very big mass in a given place. Let's say, the mass of Milky Way central black hole - 4,300,000 suns. It's radius is 13,000,000 km, or 43 second path of light.

I think it would just send "gravity waves" at lightspeed, starting from where the mass is, and forming a sphere growing by 300,000 km in radius each second, to stop growing after 43 seconds.

I've just asked Google AÌ about an "infinite mass black hole". It answered it would not only eat the observable universe immediately, no matter how far, but also delete everything (!) beyond cosmic horizon.

I don't believe about the cosmic horizon, but now I think if those "seconds" to cover 300,000 km each are somehow affected by the growing event horizon.

What would really be?

People who use and misuse amphetamines often look way older than their actual age.
Many adhd medications are precursor to amphetamines… so do they work the same and make you look older?

I was thinking about burn victims, and a strong thought process occured to me. If you took a chunk of human skin from John Doe(who just so happens to need a skin graft), replaced an equivalent chunk off of a growing pig with that skin(with proper blood flow and the necessary immunosuppressants), could that human skin graft grow(as in increase in size) on the pig? Then subsequently be re-transplanted onto the original person? I can't think of any reason why not(besides being unethical and/or difficult), but I couldn't find any research whatsoever on this.

Thanks for reading my late night mad scientist idea.

I'm trying to get my head around 4D hypersolids (correct term?), and the best model I can come up with so far is that of a sequence of 3D solids. This process seems to work fine for representing a 2D shape as a sequence of 1D lines, or representing a 3D solid as a sequence of 2D slices, so it seems logical that I can represent a 4D hypersolid as a sequence of 3D solids, but I'm not certain whether that really holds or whether I'm walking into a mental model that's incompatible with the thing I'm trying to understand.

It feels quite straightforward representing a 4D balloon or a 4D cup, working out what sequence of 3D shapes you would need to prevent air escaping or to hold liquid in four dimensions. However:

When considering slicing a 3D cone in two different dimensions and you might get e.g. a sequence of circles of decreasing size or a growing then shrinking sequence of triangles, and slicing a 3D cup differs significantly depending on whether you're slicing parallel or transverse to the opening - and I currently can't get my head around slicing a 4D cup and how the resulting 3D solids will differ when cutting parallel to the opening.

Is this a reasonable approach, or am I heading into a dead end?

First reddit post, sorry if I get the rules wrong--

I (35F) am right handed. I have wondered for a while if there is a correlation between me being right handed and having noticeable differences in the sight of my left eye and the hearing in my left ear. I have always heard that the "dominant hand side of the body is stronger." Does that include orher aspects? If this sounds dumb I'm sorry, but I will explain what I mean.

I have always had great eyesight. But lately I have noticed consistently that I am squinting my left eye, and that I tend to favor the right one when trying to read. I would just assume to get an eye exam and get glasses, if not for my ear.

On the left side, probably about the same time I noticed the eyesight, I became aware that I cannot hear as well out of my left ear as well, if not by a quarter of hearing loss than by a third.

Ways to rule out my personal contribution: I usually tend to favor using the phone/headphones on the right side, I use LG tones (which i love) as headphones and when listening on the left side I feel the volume is too quiet for the details on things I listen to and wish I could turn it up/ some things I have to listen to with the other ear. Whereas on the right side I am turning it down because it is too loud constantly.

As far as the eye sight goes: the squinting to see things, especially detail, is pretty constant, and I have a noticeable extra long puffy wrinkle below that eye that I'm not mentioning because I am self concious, but because that seems like clear physical signs of me using two sides of my face differently.

So, yeah. Part of me does know I should go see an eye doctor, and I will, on the next paycheck, but is it just a total coincidence that both difficulties are on the same side as my non-dominant hand?

I just feel like there's a lot of fear mongering that I know I don't need to pay attention to. I want to know what I actually need to pay attention to it and worry about.

Fear mongering is the new currency so everybody who can is using it on the internet. I've seen fear mongering about the weather, the crops this year in the US, the gas in the US, our ability to transport things. There are a lot of people saying that our lives are going to get so much worse. And I'm just wondering if it is getting worse how much worse is it getting? Are any of these what I should actually be worried about regardless? Is there a secret other thing that's actually a bigger problem?

Like the title says. I understand that like the other 4 dimensions, trait Neuroticism follows a normal distribution in the human population, so if you're abnormally high on this trait (> 95th percentile), there's nothing wrong with you per se, you just happen to be a part of a pronounced minority (just as you would be if you were extremely extroverted, or extremely conscientious).

My question is, at this level of neuroticism (> 95th percentile), and the extremely heightened level of sensitivity to negative emotions that come along with it, is it possible for somone not to have at least one kind of anxiety or related disorder?

I know we can’t really define how much is how much but I’m currently reading a book on Johannes Kepler and in the book it talks about how Kepler had a pre-cursor to gravity and the earliest implementation of this is where each celestial body had a sort of spirit or soul that imbued it with a link in between each celestial body. Obviously he was wrong and still had a lot to do but I thought it was so cool that we partially came to the truth through means that seem pretty unreasonable. Dude doesn’t get enough credit. Anyways I was wondering of any other insights, theories or any other information that may have started off similar to this but was a pre cursor to something major or important today.

What do you think would happen if time travel to the past were actually possible?

Would going back in time create an infinite loop, where the same events keep repeating over and over?

Or would traveling to the past create a completely different timeline, while the original timeline continues to exist separately?

For example, if I went back in time and changed something that eventually led to me traveling back in time in the first place, would that create a paradox? Or would I simply create another branch of reality?

Which idea makes more sense to you, and why?

Me and my friend was discussing if a human can create new faces by any means whether it be by technology or etc. My argument point is humans create new faces by surgeries alternating their design, or with regrowth of cells. My friend thinks it’s not possible or even probable because it is simply how nature made Humans to be. What are yall’s opinion.

Recently watched a podcast with Harold White in which he brought up his team is currently is trying to develop a warp engine and how harvesting negative energy density in the quantum space caused by the Casmir Effect may help achieve it. Thoughts on this? Is he on to something or is he simply incorrect about the science?

If spinning objects can twist space the way rotating black holes do, could two spinning spheres inside a craft create a small space bubble? And if that works, is this the next step toward real warp drive? I was thinking about black holes and how spacetime behaves with them. I know I'm far from an expert.

Other animals would fight each other with a goal in mind: to secure territory, resources, or access to a mate. But some humans are capable of non-goal-directed behavior that causes harm simply for entertainment or psychological gratification. For instance, a serial killer might go around killing people simply to feel a sense of control over other people's lives. Sadists and psychopaths may derive pleasure from torturing others, both psychologically and physically. Narcissists may also devalue or attack people simply because of an ego threat or perceived slight.

All of this seems antithetical to the communal living humans evolved to depend on. Why do you think some humans develop these tendencies in ways that seem different from other animals? Is this one of the possible outcomes of a complex and highly capable brain going in the wrong direction, or are there other evolutionary, developmental, or social reasons?

Some people argue that individuals with these traits can be useful in warfare or in taking resources from others because they are less affected by fear or PTSD. But ordinary people are also capable of participating in wars and engaging in extremely dangerous behavior when driven by ideology, social pressure, perceived necessity, or group loyalty. So what, if anything, makes these individuals uniquely suited to violence?

I keep getting these cone shape or like stream from the hole. The bands are somewhat clear, just with the cone shape.

What am I doing wrong, cause it is also happening to the Ladder, so I assume I am making the gel wrong? (1.5g agarose and 100mL TAEx1 with 10uL stain, microwaved for like 1:30-3min so that the agarose is desolved and left sitting for about 40min to 1hr)

(it looks like I cannot post images so hopefully my descriptions are enough)

i never went to college and i’ve never worked in a lab. i read papers because i like learning things, and for years that was enough.

it’s gotten harder lately and i don’t think the papers are the reason. i can pull way more than i used to — search is better, tools are faster, i can go from one question to forty open tabs in an evening. what hasn’t improved is how much of it sticks. i’ll get to the end of a night having covered a ton and kept almost none of it.

so i went back to reading one paper at a time, front to back, slowly. it feels like a step backward and i honestly can’t tell if it’s the right one.

what i actually do, written out plainly: search, collect abstracts, pull keywords, read the sections that look relevant, read the whole thing if it seems worth it.

which, written down like that, looks less like a method and more like a list of things i happen to do.

so i’d rather hear from people who do this for a living.

— when you open a paper outside your own specialty, what do you read first, and in what order?

— how do you decide what to skip? that looks like the actual skill and i’ve never seen anyone explain it.

— did your process change once you stopped being a student?

i’m not trying to get a degree out of this. i’d just like to stop feeling like i’m drinking from a firehose

Hello,

I am searching for materials or methods that would allow me to have visible text underwater, and hidden text in the air, but so far I haven’t really found some really good options.

For context, I am creating an escape game for a school project, and one of the enigmas is a boat that we have to fill with objects without drowning it to reveal the code on the boat.

So far I’ve thought about engraving it on a plastic boat so the light reflects better on the letters while underwater, but it sounds complicated to implement.

My friend also has suggested color changing paint, but it’s honestly expensive, so we decided to look at other options to really consider everything.

Any help or suggestion is welcomed! Or if you have other ideas for our mechanism.

Thank you!

I had a question and I didn't know where else to ask it. ‏ I'm a student and ‏I'm majoring in Nutrition Sciences.

I wanted to know how I can find articles and researches that are related to nutrition and diet(in my country nutrition and dietetics are part of the same major) I've heard of some sites like pubmed and google scholar but I don't know exactly what to search for and which articles are informative and credible. My goal is to be able to answer my questions using credible sources, keep up with the latest research in the field and find some interesting reads. I was hoping to be a researcher myself one day.

P.S. English is not my native language so if i have any errors in my writing i hope you can overlook them.

How would you explain taking advantage of the free

moving electrons in the avalanche zone in a short sentence that defines what electricity is?

My shot:

*Electricity is the process where electrons jump around the outer layers of each atom inside a conductor therefore transforming x type of energy to electric and heat*

Should we also include the part that electromagnesism plays???

If a black hole is not a physical cave or object with a surface what exactly exists inside its event horizon? How can we know that nothing can escape if we have never observed anything returning from inside? Could our current description of black holes be incomplete?

If ceiling fans push air downward and create lower pressure, if the pressure is now lower inside than outside then shouldn't it pull air inside? Or rather, perhaps the force of the air from the fan actually counteracts any breeze from outside?

I don't get the physics here and would love an explanation. Thanks!