Science Trivia

[Torment]

Yeah, now you mention it, there is a slight curvature in the upper vertebra. But I have no idea what conclusion to draw from this without looking up the statistics of this particular scientific method, so I'd just be guessing in the dark. So I'll pass.

[chamaeleo]

This might help...

http://ejo.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/24/3/303.pdf

No time to contribute further, late for supper! Mmmmm, tacos...

[Phier]

Ok, I wont' be mean again, that was a bit esoteric, but I at least defeated google.

The two things to look at are the vertebra and the second molar. Approximate age would be about 9. I say about because there can be quite a bit of variation.

[chamaeleo]

Crap, I forgot to guess (that's about all it would'e been). According to the article, stage threeish? ~10 yo?

Fun question!

[Torment]

Okay, this one really falls under science trivia: why is "Big Bang" actually a fallacious term. And if you know the answer to this question, here's one to follow up: who introduced the term and why? Again peepz, if you don't know, just don't answer. Googling and spoiling just isn't any fun.

[Sphere]

Sound could not travel in the vacuum of space, you would have heard nothing?

And no follow up/multi-questions in these threads, it makes things horribly muddled, as who actually answered a question becomes very unclear.

[Tankbuster]

Okay, this one really falls under science trivia: why is "Big Bang" actually a fallacious term. And if you know the answer to this question, here's one to follow up: who introduced the term and why? Again peepz, if you don't know, just don't answer. Googling and spoiling just isn't any fun.

Hmm, the term was introduced by Fred Hoyle, who used it to ridicule the theory proposed by a Belgian professor at Louvain (Lemaître??), who essentially thought that the universe had started as a singularity (in which all matter and energy was compressed). In that respect, it's a term like Tory or Impressionist (it began as a name to ridicule it, but it was adopted by proponents of the theory because they thought it sounded cute or something).

And why is it a fallacious term... well I guess because time and all (four? thirteen? twenty-seven? who knows?) dimensions were created by the expansion of that singularity, so visualising it as a small point in which all matter is compressed is actually wrong, because... the singulairty simply was all the space that was there.
Now that I think about it, a guy named TheAstronomer on youtube expressed this sentiment: he said that the visualisation of the Big Bang as a small point full of light that suddenly exploded into a black darkness, drove him nuts, because there was no black darkness around the point of light, so to speak.

P.S. Great idea, Torment! Let's simply ask moderately difficult questions, but things that are actually knowable.

[Torment]

Hold your horses Tankie! You're going way too deep! If you want to discuss singularities, I'd suggest going to Harvard or something, 'cause even the most educated professors still have problems defining what singularity really means.

The answers was simply: 1. Big Bang is fallacious because it implies an explosion (bang), whilst the theory describes an expanding universe, which is something completely different. 2. You are correct here. It was introduced originally by proponents of a steady state universe to mock the idea of an expanding universe. It's lovely irony that we now use a derogatory term to define one of the most scientifically backed theories in astronomy.

[Tankbuster]

Oh, yeah, that too. I was trying to point out that the explosion itself is a false way of visualising and characterising what probably happened, but yeah, the fact that there was no sound either should be quite obvious

P.S. Maybe I am at Harvard

[Nikos]

Well NO ONE is going to ask a question? Fine, I guess I'll go again,

What two sub groups of flying reptiles are there?

[Frédéric Chopin]

Pterodactyloidea and Rhamphorhycoidea? I probably spelled those completely wrong.

[Nikos]

Pterodactyloidea and Rhamphorhycoidea? I probably spelled those completely wrong.

Nope

[Tankbuster]

Pterosaurs and Archaeopteryx?
Archaeopteryx is probably not a class in its own though.

[Nikos]

Pterosaurs and Archaeopteryx?
Archaeopteryx is probably not a class in its own though.

Incorrect

[Torment]

Uhm, Chopin was correct. The only two subgroups of Pterosaurs are Pterodactyls and that other unpronounceable subgroup.

[Nikos]

Uhm, Chopin was correct. The only two subgroups of Pterosaurs are Pterodactyls and that other unpronounceable subgroup.

While he was correct, I wanted it to be a more distinct answer. The
Pterodactyloidea had short tails while the Rhamphorhynchoidea had long tails. The answer I was looking for was "Short tails and Long tails". That wouldn't be too easy to find on google.

[Frédéric Chopin]

I don't see how naming the subgroups is any less distinct than naming the distinguishing feature or how it's any harder to find on google.

So no one got it right?

[Nikos]

I don't see how naming the subgroups is any less distinct than naming the distinguishing feature or how it's any harder to find on google.

It's easy to google the scientific names, but it's not so easy to find why they are separated.

So no one got it right?

You technically got it so I'll give it to you. I should have specified more.

[Frédéric Chopin]

It's hard to come up with something hard to google.

What is this?

[Tankbuster]

That's the emission spectrum of a certain atom. The trick is to give a certain atom a lot of extra energy. The electrons of the atom will then go into higher orbits; when they fall back down again, they will emit light. The catalogus of the emitted light beams is the emission spectrum.

Each material has its own spectrum (because the color of the light and the thickness of the strips has to do with the wavelength of the light, which is directly related to the characteristics of the atom).

You can use them in conjunction with Fraunhofer lines to figure out the chemical composition of stars, but in my engineering studies we use them to identify atoms or the composition of compounds.