-
12 votes
-
Why is everything binary?
12 votes -
Is dark energy getting weaker? Fresh data bolster shock finding.
24 votes -
Scientists fill knowledge gaps in immune system functions responsible for fighting bacteria
13 votes -
Generative AI tool marks a milestone in biology - Evo 2 can predict the form and function of proteins in the DNA of all domains of life
29 votes -
Sociogenomics, a new scientific field is changing the understanding of how and why people develop the specific ways that they do
13 votes -
Melbourne start-up launches 'biological computer' made of human brain cells
9 votes -
Keystone Molecules: a new, chemical view of ecosystems
7 votes -
Anger is a flow of emotion like water through a hose − at work, it helps to know when to turn it up or down and how to direct it
14 votes -
Scientists have bred "Woolly Mice" on their journey to bring back the mammoth
40 votes -
Why wasn't there a second age of reptiles?
14 votes -
Holotypic Occlupanids - How the internet invented bread clip science
14 votes -
Drone captures narwhals using their tusks to explore, forage and play
12 votes -
Why Thomas Jefferson meticulously monitored the weather wherever he went
8 votes -
Orchid's nutrient theft from fungi sheds light on photosynthesis-parasitism continuum
21 votes -
Mean World Syndrome - moderate to heavy exposure to violence-related content in mass media may cause people to perceive the world to be more dangerous than it is
36 votes -
These universities have the most retracted scientific articles
20 votes -
Overfitting to theories of overfitting
10 votes -
Under Donald Trump, US government scientists told they need clearance to meet with Canadian counterparts
23 votes -
Cynicism vs hopeful skepticism
7 votes -
Researchers have created a new battery using aluminum
15 votes -
The collapse of ego depletion - discussing theories that get disproven after appearing to be true
12 votes -
If eyes emitted light, could they still see?
Ok, this is one of those thoughts I have in my brain and that I can't quite get rid of. It breaks down into a couple of questions. For the purposes of this, I'm aware that what eyes see is the...
Ok, this is one of those thoughts I have in my brain and that I can't quite get rid of.
It breaks down into a couple of questions. For the purposes of this, I'm aware that what eyes see is the reflection of light bouncing off objects, but I'm curious the impact on the visibility of both objects and other lights.A. If eyes emitted any light, could they still see anything at all?
B. If eyes emitted, for example, red light, could they see everything except red items? What about red lights? Does this change if the light is green or violet?
B.1. If they can't red things would they just be invisible?
B.2. If they can't see red lights, would it matter if the red light they're seeing is brighter or dimmer, and would it still be an invisible/blank space?
C. I'm not sure how infrared interacts here but I know animals that sense infrared do emit it, is there a reason that's different, if it's different.The internet is mostly not super helpful with this, since eyes don't emit light, just reflect it and look glowy, but yeah, anyway... thanks for entertaining my weird fixation.
17 votes -
Piece of fossilised fish vomit has been found in Denmark – unusual discovery dated to the end of the Cretaceous period sixty-six million years ago
8 votes -
National Science Foundation freezes grant review in response to US President Donald Trump executive orders
13 votes -
I put a toaster in the dishwasher (2012)
41 votes -
Academic urban legends about spinach and iron
14 votes -
How to feel bad and be wrong
22 votes -
How to teach yourself physics
11 votes -
World’s oldest 3D map discovered
11 votes -
Kids at-home science experiments (of the less tame variety)
My 5-year-old loves doing “science experiments” at home with me and her older siblings, but it seems that the online lists of experiments we’re choosing from are truncated to leave off all but the...
My 5-year-old loves doing “science experiments” at home with me and her older siblings, but it seems that the online lists of experiments we’re choosing from are truncated to leave off all but the least dangerous activities. This makes sense for a lot of low-parental-involvement contexts, but I’m going to be directing and deeply involved in these experiments. And I want fire. Smoke. Sparks. I want to make these experiments feel adventurous so the kids get really excited about whatever we’re learning. Baking soda and vinegar volcanoes and elephant toothpaste just don’t cut it.
What experiments can you recommend using only relatively common household materials? Chemicals, candles, electricity, a stovetop, etc. (Assume that the experimenters will all be taking standard precautions, wearing PPE, and generally using the experiments as both an opportunity to learn about science and about the safety measures that go with science experimentation.)
Or if you know of any websites listing these more spectacular home science experiments, please share those as well.
Bonus if the experiments involve multiple possible outcomes that the kid can use pen and paper and elementary math to predict in advance.
28 votes -
Lithium and alkaline AA batteries tested by Project farm
31 votes -
It's time to abandon the cargo cult metaphor
26 votes -
Mantracks: a true story of fake fossils
18 votes -
Fire from the storm: Chemical release at bio-lab
8 votes -
Square root of 0<x<2
bit of a dated post but something I am curious about. I watched Terence Howard's first appearance on Joe Rogan and found it mostly funny but something he pointed out did pique my interest. the...
bit of a dated post but something I am curious about. I watched Terence Howard's first appearance on Joe Rogan and found it mostly funny but something he pointed out did pique my interest.
the root of his issues with basic math seem to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding (or dislike?) of 2 things in particular:
- that any number multiplied by a fraction results in a smaller number (basically he struggles a lot with logic of fractional math) and
- the fact that for x where 0<x<2 , that x2 < x*2 when he is apparently under the notion that x2 should always be bigger than x*2 and to him, the fact that that isn't the case for 0<x<2 is evidence of some big mystery or conspiracy
but it did make me wonder if there's a certain name or property given to the numbers where 0<x<2 to note the fact the fact that for those numbers, x2 < x*2?
7 votes -
Scientists induce endosymbiosis for first time in lab, a crucial step necessary for complex life
10 votes -
How easy is it for Norway's international seed bank to navigate politics and secure our future food supply?
6 votes -
Why probability probably doesn't exist (but it's useful to act like it does)
11 votes -
Journal that published faulty black plastic study removed from science index
40 votes -
How the novel became a laboratory for experimental physics
8 votes -
Revisiting stereotype threat
6 votes -
I bought a 1,000,000,000 fps video camera to watch light move
8 votes -
California squirrels are hunting and eating voles, surprising UC Davis study says
9 votes -
‘Unprecedented risk’ to life on Earth: Scientists call for halt on ‘mirror life’ microbe research
55 votes -
A liar who always lies says “All my hats are green.”
22 votes -
Formalizing Fermat’s Last Theorem - How it’s going
4 votes -
On-scalp printing of personalized electroencephalography e-tattoos - comparison to traditional EEG sensors and overview
15 votes -
Crabs, crustaceans, and pain
12 votes -
Inside the hidden history of secretaries and stenographers at Princeton
5 votes