Upload
Login or register
Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds
asd
#5661 - meierme
Reply 0
(08/20/2016) [-]
TLR lots of radiation exposure and wondering how to test to compare with normal amounts. Cant afford a doctor, curious if there's an over the counter way.

I have been thinking about my radiation levels lately. In the past 5 years I have had a barium swallow (exposed for 4 min), upper GI scan, lower GI scan, CT scan for multiple fractures in my shoulder, a couple standard X-rays, and a total of 13 CT scans after my appendix burst (I went septic). Of those 13 about half were really quick I had a pooling of infectious fluid in the center of my pelvis, so they had to drive a 1/4 in tube through my butt cheek to drain it. During the proceed they used the CT scanner to make sure it was going in the right direction. Every now and then stopping to do a quick check. That thing was in there for another 2 weeks after I was discharged. . While I was still in the hospital a cancer specialist came to visit me and said I have had way too much radiation exposure. She was pretty vague on everything else but I am curious as to when I should be expecting cancer?
#5662 to #5661 - mublerking
Reply 0
(08/20/2016) [-]
To answer your question directly, blood work is the obvious option (as it is the most accurate representation) but as you said over the counter. You could get a dosimeter, they can be fairly cheap and ordered online (cheap ones are like 10/15$). That would give you a vague estimate of your radiation exposure. Although this is the vaguest of vague estimates as it doesn't tell you how much your organs have absorbed. There really isn't any kind of accurate test for that, even the numbers doctors report are just kinda "well you've had this done and that done and it'll give you about this much so here's how much"

Although if you're freaking out about it, you probably shouldn't worry. X-rays only give 1.5mSv of radiation, and CT scans (45-60 minutes, I'm not sure how long you were) give an effective dose of 3.3-10mSv. <3mSv is low, 3-20mSv is moderate, >20mSv is high. From the sound of it though you kind of needed those tests, so think about it like this: you couldn't really have done much to avoid them.

Source: trust me I do physics in all seriousness and in the event you haven't seen any of my other comments, I'm a particle physicist.
#5663 to #5662 - meierme
Reply 0
(08/20/2016) [-]
Not really freaking out about it, I just wanted to know if I'm a walking radioactive ghoul. honestly getting told I had cancer would be a relief
#5658 - shaunata
Reply +2
(08/18/2016) [-]
Is the reason why plants don't really die from cancer like animals do is because, their cell walls prevent the malignant cells from spreading and matasticizing?
#5659 to #5658 - mublerking
Reply +2
(08/18/2016) [-]
It is partly that, partly their lack of circulatory system similar to ours that would allow it to be transported around. Theres also the fact that animal cells become specialized during embryonic development, so they can only divide and form cells of a certain type. This means that when animal cells become cancerous they can invade surrounding tissue with the incorrect type of cell, which interferes with the function of organs. Plants in that sense don't really have "vital organs" like we do, they're not as affected. In plants their cells are usually totipotent meaning that they can still divide into cells of any type. Hence, they can still grow the correct multicellular structures necessary to live, just with a deformed shape.
#5660 to #5659 - shaunata
Reply +1
(08/19/2016) [-]
Very interesting! Thanks!
#5654 - chillybean ONLINE
Reply 0
(08/17/2016) [-]
Alright, don't know if this is the place to ask, but i'd like an answer and this is the only place i could find that might help (google was just not answering me)

if 733 = 70%, what is the total 100%?
#5711 to #5654 - alpacalypse
Reply 0
(09/14/2016) [-]
you already got an answer but I made this for you for future reference
#5713 to #5711 - chillybean ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/14/2016) [-]
thanks, science friend
#5657 to #5654 - platinumaltaria ONLINE
Reply +1
(08/18/2016) [-]
733/0.7=1047.14286
#5655 to #5654 - mublerking
Reply 0
(08/17/2016) [-]
if you want N percent of X you take X*(N/100) so we want 70%, so we have X*(70/100)
we know that 70% is 733 so:
733=0.7*X

thus X=733/0.7≈1047
#5656 to #5655 - chillybean ONLINE
Reply +2
(08/17/2016) [-]
Thanks, unfortunately i can't retain shit so I'll probably have to ask again if I ever need it again.

But thank you for the answer, much appreciated
#5653 - vozel
Reply +2
(08/17/2016) [-]
the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell
#5652 - studbeefpile ONLINE
Reply +1
(08/16/2016) [-]
I'm Rick Harrison, and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss. Everything in here has a story and a price. One thing I've learned after 21 years - you never know WHAT is gonna come through that door.
#5650 - yatush
Reply +1
(08/16/2016) [-]
Hey science people

So i've been wondering for a while now, it sounds just too good to be true.
Is CRISPR that promising for the future of mankind? How close are we to it becoming a practical and ethical practice?

It just seems like the masterkey to most of humanity's problems.

enlighten me, science freaks.
#5651 to #5650 - mublerking
Reply +1
(08/16/2016) [-]
So if you don't care to look down, I'm a physicist. I didn't study biology, my undergraduate was in engineering physics, but the first two years are general engineering science years so one of the courses I had to take was molecular biology so I got a general overview of things like crispr or gel electrophoresis So basically, it allows the targetted editing of the DNA. It locates specific parts, cleaves them, then we can insert new things in its place. A quick explanation: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dRT7slyGhs

More recently china has been editing human genes (less strict regulations), and they've approved part-animal part-human embryo testing here. (people freak out about it, like its gonna be some bagi shit, but it'll likely be so heavily regulated that nothing like that will come of it.) www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a22189/part-human-part-animal-embryos-get-green-light/
#5648 - ciaphascain
Reply +1
(08/16/2016) [-]
**ciaphascain used "*roll picture*"**
**ciaphascain rolled image**
The next big discovery will be in this:
#5647 - mublerking
Reply +1
(08/15/2016) [-]
>Picking a guage
>Not assuming the ζ terms in your propagators don't cancel until you can show it cancels with the slashed momentum in true QED or showing it can cancel via some inner product with the polarization tensors or via a sum of Feynman diagrams at the same order in scalar QED.

How can anyone be this fucking basic FJ
#5649 to #5647 - mublerking
Reply +3
(08/16/2016) [-]
I feel like there's not much activity on this board and I just wanna shitpost about physics
#5644 - anon
Reply +1
(08/15/2016) [-]
I woke up from an insane dream FJ.It was weird as it felt like how dreams should be,what feels like an hour is actually 6 hours of sleep but it wasn't,it was actually around 45 minutes of sleep.

The important details were how I realized certain things were different from my typical dreams,when I realized in my dream that it was going a different way I repeatedly said to myself "Dreams are not supposed to be this way" for what I felt was 2 minutes.
Another one is how a song is playing in my dream the exact time it played in real life as I fell asleep listening to my playlist,I woke around near the end of the song.

The reason I woke up is how I noticed something was off,I was buying newspaper but there was no front page,nothing to show the headlines so I was like "Wtf?".I didn't feel tired even though I got like another 6 hours of sleep to go but there was a slight headache.

Dreams are weird,anyone has knowledge of what's going on?
#5643 - whitechino
Reply +1
(08/15/2016) [-]
I got a good question for ya.
What's the top three animals that can have a baby at an old age. Around 50 humans can't have little copies anymore but can a 55 year old elephant can? Or a 39 year old whale? Let me hear it.
#5645 to #5643 - mublerking
Reply +1
(08/15/2016) [-]
So after reading around a little bit (keep in mind I'm not a biologist, I'm a physicist, I just saw your question and went out to read) it seems as though humans are the weird ones out. By that I mean that it turns out very few species seem to go through menopause, only about 3 do (humans, killer whales, and pilot whales.). many species become less fertile as they age, like chimpanzees who's reproductive chances reach about 0 at 45. What makes us different is that after we reach that point we can continue living on for decades whereas other animals seem to die quickly afterwards. So to answer your question, basically most animals that live longer than us can.
#5646 to #5645 - whitechino
Reply 0
(08/15/2016) [-]
I guess the females become less fertile first because theit bodies have to do 100X more work than the males 44 second job.
#5633 - effort
Reply +2
(08/12/2016) [-]
I need some academic advice.

I'll be starting an intense 2 semesters worth of physics courses. Taking about 5-6 courses a semester. For the first semester it'll be optics, math applied physics (dq, vector differential and integrals), therm, intro to modern physics, intro to classical phys lab and solid state electronics.

For the latter semester, it'll be electromagnetism, modern phys lab, mechanics, electrical circuits, and math applied physics II (laplace transforms, fourier analysis, complex analysis). All the courses 200 level, except for electromagnetism and modern phys lab (300 level courses).

Should I make adjustments? I can move electrical circuits to my first semester or swap it with a course mentioned before. I also have the option to replace math applied physics II with optoelectronics, is it wise to do so? I'm an ME major and a prospective student for a masters in aerospace, so I'm not sure how useful it will be to learn about laplace transforms, fourier analysis, complex analysis for physics.

On a last note, how difficult will it be to maintain a "good" GPA at least a B+ with this course load?
#5634 to #5633 - mublerking
Reply +1
(08/13/2016) [-]
So I studied engineering physics in my undergrad (more towards the particle side of things), my girlfriend studied mechatronics engineering (more towards the for space robots side of it). Because of this, we took different courses, I took complex analysis PDEs, math to eventually support quantum field theory which I studied in my spare time for fun on the side but I digress .

Anyways, when she started taking more advanced mechanical courses she eventually realised that she should have taken the courses with me since she needed the course materials from them. Laplace transforms make solving DE's with things like impulse incredibly simple, and impulse is a quick and sudden force so you can see how that might be needed for the mechanical side of it. There's also the PDEs required to solve the geodesic equations and things like that, which come into play when using the stress-energy tensor for things like liquid flow.

I took most of those courses so going through each course heres the general gist/how simple or tough it'll be:
-electromagnetism is actually usually fairly basic as long as you enjoy vector calculus. Genuinely it seems simple to just memorize all the equation but if you learn the equations of motion and how to solve them with initial conditions its way way simpler.
-Most modern physics at the 200 level just covers basics of SR seriously learn minkowski diagrams and it makes everything simpler in SR , the quantum part is usually just basics of wave functions quantum harmonic oscillator, solutions to the wave equation for basic potentials. I really stress this a lot to younger students, but seriously it can't be said enough. Learn the differential equations, learn how to plug in the variables and its all a cake walk.
-The math stuff is fairly useful. Laplace transforms make DEs fairly simple, complex analysis makes electromagnetism simple.
-The optics which usually seems first at fun depending on course can have fairly annoying parts to them. It can sometimes be a lot of memorization of specific setups.

Keep in mind this is just in my experience, so it could be completely different.
#5635 to #5634 - effort
Reply +1
(08/13/2016) [-]
Apparently, laplace and fourier are important techniques to learn for upper level physics, since it involves a lot of DEs, just like you said, it makes DE's simpler. However, complex analysis doesn't seem like a necessity for ME students, unless I really want to know the real details of the math behind courses like aerodynamics.

This might be a topic in an entirely different area for you, but I plan to go into propulsion or structural design. Just want to make sure, structural design is equivalent to the physical design and stress testing of air/spacecrafts? Also if you know anything about propulsion, is the level of chemistry knowledge that is required equated to that of a level 100 chem course? It seems like space propulsion is slowly crawling towards electrical propulsion (ion thrusters) or any other alternative, and there aren't many chem engineers in the space industry.

Thanks for your input!
#5636 to #5635 - mublerking
Reply +1
(08/13/2016) [-]
The complex analysis just makes things much easier, like solving DEs and integrating stuff (some integrals are more easily evaluated as complex valued functions than real 2d ones.) You said you want to go into propulsion, so right now that's more chemically based, but as you mentioned it could become more electrical in the future (e.g. with light based propulsion). The complex analysis makes everything to do with electromagnetic fields simpler (seeing as instead of seeing electricity and magnetism as separate one can view them as a single complex field). If you don't do particle physics stuff like I did, where complex analysis is used all the time in dyson/feynman/retarded/advanced propagators and all the quantum field integrals then its really used to simplify things you can do another more difficult way without it. It's something that seems useless at first, you're like "when would I ever need to integrate around a pole?" but it comes up way more often than youd think.

I didn't take structural design courses, my girlfriend did. From what she talked about with them it seemed like a lot of stuff about physical design yeah. Stuff like making things to withstand certain conditions, but I can't really say much more about it because I'm not entirely sure.

I know you'd at least need thermodynamics (which you're taking), which at my university was more a chemistry course than a physics course. You might also need more materials based courses to discuss physically building the structures which also counted as chemical engineering for my university. You'd likely need more advanced thermo courses than the basic ones, as useful as carnot engines are its a little more complex than that. The same with materials courses, like nanostructured materials, they can be like 300/400 level courses.
#5637 to #5636 - effort
Reply +1
(08/14/2016) [-]
Holy crap, thanks for you answer!

I'm still an undergrad working for my ME degree still have time to decide on which field to specialize . Anyways, if I learn fourier and laplace, I'll be learning complex analysis as well, as all three subjects are crammed into one course at my school.

I'm just really ecstatic about engines, particularly rocket engines to be specific, finding alternative methods of propulsion (much more efficient methods of space travel) . Hence, I'm interested in propulsion not a big fan of chem though or structural design.

At the moment, it seems rather difficult to find the different fields of aerospace engineering and what each field does. If I do find any search results, it's usually really broad. Thus, I'm confused as to what particular fields of aerospace might be involved with the development of an actual engine, such as the F-1 engine used on the Saturn V, or the newly proposed deep space plasma engine, VASIMR.
#5638 to #5637 - mublerking
Reply +1
(08/14/2016) [-]
No problem.

I also remembered a specific application of complex analysis to your field was things like Christoffel-Schwartz maps and conformal maps (mappings of the complex plane to different portions of the complex planes.) As they can allow you to see the stream lines and equipotential lines of an ideal fluid flow. As well, the Fourier transform and Laplace transforms can be calculated by hand when you know it (via residue integrals.) As well, the stability theorems relating to the stability of solutions of linear systems (how likely they are to shift away from their solutions)

And I kind of know what you mean. Although it was in a sense designed to be that way. In undergrad it's left kind of general still, more specific than high school but nowhere near as specific as say a masters or doctorate. Hence why there isn't much of a description of what each field does. With the same degree they could go on to do a whole range of things that are completely disjoint. It doesn't really get specific until you're working or doing another degree, and even then you choose what you want to lean more towards as opposed to it being like "I'm doing a masters of ____ in this area", more like "I'm doing a masters in physics and I personally am doing stuff more along the lines of ______". Like at the doctorate level for me, I'd say choose to go into particle physics, but then I'd still be able to choose more experimental or theoretical, then beyond that I could lean towards say effective field theories or renormalizable theories. I'm putting this in a spoiler since I feel like I've talked too much about my field, but that's mostly because it's easier to talk about stuff with an example, and they're the easiest example I can come up with.
#5639 to #5638 - effort
Reply +1
(08/15/2016) [-]
Thanks again for all your help!
I don't mind you using your major as an example, helps build an intuition.

If you don't mind, do you have any recommendations on books/textbooks for fourier/laplace and complex analysis, and some of the other courses I've listed? e.g, Calculus Made Easy by Silvanus P. Thompson (helped me through calculus)
#5640 to #5639 - mublerking
Reply +1
(08/15/2016) [-]
Complex variables ~ Stephen D Fisher
www.amazon.ca/Complex-Variables-Stephen-D-Fisher/d
Good if you want a general overview. Contains stuff like interpreting complex functions, complex integration, conformal maps (and their fluid flow interpretations), Laplace and Fourier transforms.

Differential equations with boundary value problems ~ Brannan and Boyce
www.amazon.com/Differential-Equations-Boundary-Val
Contains information about solving many types of DEs, linear systems of them, nonlinear ones, basic partial ones, applications to engineering. Also describes Laplace transform methods in great detail.

Microelectronic circuits ~ sedra and smith
www.amazon.ca/Microelectronic-Circuits-Adel-Sedra/
Contains information about various circuit components, how they work, great at giving examples of calculations and great at showing the various uses of components (e.g. signal rectifiers)

The analysis and design of linear circuits ~ Thomas, Rosa, and Toussaint
www.amazon.ca/Analysis-Design-Linear-Circuits/dp/1
Fairly good for explanations of more basic circuits involving resistors and their uses.

Field and wave electromagnetics ~ Cheng
www.amazon.ca/Field-Wave-Electromagnetics-David-Ch
Very good explanations about concepts in electromagnetism. Goes through circuit examples often (inductance and capacitance calculations, tons of examples of many different geometries). Gives a very intuitive and thorough understanding of how electromagnetism works starting from the basics like Gaussian surfaces.

Quantum mechanics ~ Robert Scherrer
www.amazon.ca/Quantum-Mechanics-Introduction-Rober
Accessible and thorough introduction to QM.

Modern Physics ~ Randy Harris
www.amazon.ca/Modern-Physics-2nd-Randy-Harris/dp/0
A lot of people tell me they like it, I own a copy, I have used it for tutoring before. I’m not a huge fan of it just because it’s not particularly rigorous but if you’re just looking for a general overview of SR and QM than it’s fairly good.

Principles of Quantum mechanics ~ Shankar
www.amazon.ca/Principles-Quantum-Mechanics-Second-
A great overview of basics of quantum mechanics, even bringing in concepts of spin (I could rant about spin statistics and how I dont think QM should discuss the nature of bosons and fermions since it cant be proven without spin statistics and that can only be proven with relativistic quantum field theories, but I shall put that aside). Other than my vague issues with Pauli exclusion and bosons its actually great and very thorough.

Thermal physics ~ Schroeder
www.amazon.ca/Introduction-Thermal-Physics-Daniel-
Again, don’t let my vague issues with rigour and thermodynamics get in the way of this, it’s an enjoyable read and explains fairly well all the way how quantum mechanical principles result in thermodynamic effects.

Mathematical methods for physicists ~ Arfken, Weber, and harris
www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Methods-Physicists-Sev
Seriously a must have text in my opinion, its basically an encyclopedia of various types of math that just contains an absolute shitload of info.
#5641 to #5640 - effort
Reply +1
(08/15/2016) [-]
GIF
HOLY FUCK! Words can't describe what you have just done! Thanks a lot! and I really mean it, thanks a fuck ton. Did not expect this level of help on FJ,
#5642 to #5641 - mublerking
Reply +1
(08/15/2016) [-]
Seriously, no problem man. Always willing to help out someone who's interested.
#5617 - lotengo
Reply -8
(07/31/2016) [-]
I hereby plant my flag upon this board and claim this board in the name of Geert Wilders and science
#5629 to #5617 - aliennova
Reply +2
(08/07/2016) [-]
Fuck off with you and your spray tan comps.
#5631 to #5629 - lotengo
Reply -3
(08/07/2016) [-]
#5614 - masterreposter
Reply +1
(07/28/2016) [-]
Why isn't the iq a good measurement of intelligence
#5618 to #5614 - ukobarrywewa
Reply +2
(07/31/2016) [-]
IQ only measures one's relative logistic thinking. This means that if the population gets stupider, everyone's IQ rises (100 will always be average). If everyone gets smarter, everyone's IQ will lower. Also, since it measures how one thinks logically, as opposed to other factors that can affect one's overall intelligence, it can be a bit skewed. And it takes speed into account, which means that a genius who takes while to answer would have a lower IQ.
#5619 to #5618 - masterreposter
Reply 0
(07/31/2016) [-]
So maybe they can make a better intelligence measurement and call that one logistic intelligence quota
#5620 to #5619 - ukobarrywewa
Reply +1
(07/31/2016) [-]
The problem is that there is no way to test true intelligence (at least, not that anyone has thought of so far) so for the time being, the best way to know someone's actual intelligence is just to get to know them.
#5621 to #5620 - masterreposter
Reply 0
(07/31/2016) [-]
Isn't intelligence things like being able to do advanced math, play multiple instruments, be in a chess tournament? Things that average intelligence don't normally do?
#5615 to #5614 - drastronomy
Reply -8
(07/28/2016) [-]
it is
But the triuth hurts liberals when facts go against their ideology
#5630 to #5615 - aliennova
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#5616 to #5615 - masterreposter
Reply 0
(07/29/2016) [-]
What?
#5611 - anon
Reply 0
(07/25/2016) [-]
In films and TV, whenever a person is tranquilized, everything seems to slow down for them. Even voices and sounds get deeper, to further show that things are slowing down, as if to demonstrate that their body isn't operating as fast.

But if the mind began to slow down, wouldn't we actually perceive things as happening faster, as we wouldn't be able to take in the information very quickly.

When you experience an adrenaline rush, you perceive things as if they had been slowed down, because your brain is operating so quickly.

The only film I recall where perception speeds up as they are tranquilized is Madagascar.
#5613 to #5611 - ukobarrywewa
Reply -1
(07/26/2016) [-]
When you get a hit of tranquilizer, it doesn't make your brain slow down, it makes you drowsy. When you're drowsy, things do seem to slow down, visually at least.
#5610 - masterreposter
Reply 0
(07/23/2016) [-]
If we can stop light, can we eat it?
#5622 to #5610 - platinumaltaria ONLINE
Reply +1
(08/05/2016) [-]
Sadly no, if a photon contacts an electron it excites it.
#5624 to #5622 - masterreposter
Reply 0
(08/05/2016) [-]
Would be cool if we figured how to eat stopped light lol have a laser show when we pee
#5625 to #5624 - platinumaltaria ONLINE
Reply +1
(08/05/2016) [-]
You know I don't think that's how it works.
#5626 to #5625 - masterreposter
Reply 0
(08/05/2016) [-]
You don't work
#5627 to #5626 - platinumaltaria ONLINE
Reply 0
(08/05/2016) [-]
That is correct.
#5628 to #5627 - masterreposter
Reply 0
(08/05/2016) [-]
Just a cool thought lol
#5602 - effort
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
GIF
I have the option to take either Solid State Electronics (not Solid State Physics) or Quantum Mechanics. The solid state course is a 200 course and quantum mechanics is a 300 course, both accredit the same amount (4). So, in your infinite wisdom /science/, which course would be "easier"? Btw, I'm cramming in ~5-6 physics courses a semester, so I want to lighten the load.

Side Note: I'm a mech eng major, but I have to take one of those courses.
#5603 to #5602 - Fgner
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Honestly can't tell you without knowing the school and the teachers... Just look up those professors on RateMyProfessor, look at the reviews people left for that specific class. Most people include the grade they got in the class with their review, so you can get a rough estimate as to what to expect.

I'd vote Solid State Electronics is more practical shit, likely more math involved. Quantum mechanics will likely be more conceptual and use a lot of weird Greek symbols, but in the end be easier.
#5604 to #5603 - effort
Reply +1
(07/21/2016) [-]
Thanks for the suggestions. There is an option to take the theoretical part of solid state, but it requires higher prereqs. As for the other solid state, it's practical, and requires only the first two levels of calc based physics (100 courses). However, quantum mechanics requires a 200 and 300 level physics course (introductory to modern physics and electromagnetism 2). Wouldn't solid state electronics (practical) sound easier?

Also the professors for both courses are equally terrible, which means it'll come down to home studying...
#5608 to #5604 - mublerking
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
It honestly kind of depends on how comfortable you are with calculus and stats. I'm a particle physicist, but in my undergrad I studied engineering science (major in engineering physics, minor in computer engineering) and I had to take courses like SSE. SSE the math wasn't as difficult, but it was longer and significantly more tedious, in QM as long as you were good on things like continuous probabilities and fast at integration you could do amazingly.
#5606 to #5604 - Fgner
Reply +1
(07/21/2016) [-]
Ah, go for the solid states, then. In my uni SSE was 300-level and required diff-Q and all that non-sense. My sister took QM as part of her liberal arts degree and it was shit easy, but liberal arts.
#5607 to #5606 - effort
Reply +1
(07/21/2016) [-]
Thanks for your advice, I probably already knew the answer to this question, but just wanted some reassurance.
#5605 to #5604 - effort
Reply +1
(07/21/2016) [-]
Oh I should also mention, the theoretical part of solid state requires quantum theory as a co-req.
#5601 - ukobarrywewa
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
You need to login to view this link

some of you guys might appreciate this a bit
#5632 to #5601 - thesoulseeker
Reply 0
(08/07/2016) [-]
1. Is kind of done.
2. Is not going to happen, simply because cancer isn't a single condition, but a group. Finding a single cure for conditions with multiple causes and symptoms isn't going to happen.
3. No comment.
4. Refer to 3
5. See 4
6. There's museums full of the stuff.
7. Look at 5
8. Observe 7
9. Those are two very different things. There is some evidence for dark matter in the form of gravitational lensing observations. Dark energy is more of a mystery.
#5592 - mudkipfucker
Reply 0
(07/16/2016) [-]
who would win in a fight? /science/ or /religion/?
#5623 to #5592 - platinumaltaria ONLINE
Reply 0
(08/05/2016) [-]
"fight"
#5609 to #5592 - whitechino
Reply 0
(07/23/2016) [-]
When planet X comes buy, neither won't matter.
#5597 to #5592 - Fgner
Reply +1
(07/17/2016) [-]
They're probably both die. So, I guess, society?
#5598 to #5597 - Fgner
Reply +1
(07/17/2016) [-]
> They're
#5596 to #5592 - Sewallman
Reply 0
(07/17/2016) [-]
They're both pussies
#5582 - epicalania ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/15/2016) [-]
Does anyone know what the term for a group of solar systems is?
Not a star system, (although some suborders of this grouping could be star systems, true) Not anything as large as a galaxy either.

Is there a term for a small (-ish?) cluster of planetary systems? What sort of size range would this take? a few dozen? a thousand? more?
#5583 to #5582 - Fgner
Reply 0
(07/15/2016) [-]
Open cluster. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_cluster )

Open clusters aren't so much dependent on the number of stars in them, but rather that they all come from the same gas cloud with similar ages and composition.
#5589 to #5583 - epicalania ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/16/2016) [-]
Hmm, that could be what I'm looking for, thanks