I have a lot of random questions about the world. They're the kind of questions where if I ask someone, he says "That's a good question," but has no reply. Sometimes even Google doesn't know the answer (sometimes I'm just too lazy to look though).

This is a thread for those questions.

Feel free to ask your own questions, and if you have any answers, please post those too.
My questions are mostly related to the English language, but I decided not to put this thread on Lit because I'd like for everyone to be able to post about whatever subject is intriguing/confusing/frustrating them.

Here goes for me!
If the Big Bang created equal amounts of matter and antimatter, why hasn't everything annihilated itself yet?
Why is there no E in grades? Why does it typically go from D straight to F?
Why can you be disgruntled, but not gruntled?
Why are apartments stuck together?

We already have a Random Thought Thread. Next time use ctrl+f and the "View All Threads" button in the upper right of the page.

/Sage

>>2 I know about the random thought thread :P I would say this is pretty different. Even if there is some overlap, it might reduce the rate at which we fill up and have to create new RTTs.

Why isn't Easter the biggest holiday in Christianity? It celebrates the event that the religion is based around... yet it's so minor compared to Christmas.

>>1
Basically in regards to the big bang, the universe is still in the process of expanding as a result of the force created in that event, so annihilation of everything won't be until it expels it's momentum and contracts back in on itself, which, given the estimated age of the universe in it's current state, isn't really anything we need to worry about just yet.

>>1
1. The Big Bang did not create equal parts matter and antimatter. It created about 11/10 parts matter/antimatter. All the energy is the universe is the result of all the antimatter annihilating with all the matter, with a portion of matter left over.

2. F stands for Fail, E usually stands for something like Excellent, so it didn't really fit.

3. You can be gruntled, gruntled means happy or content. It isn't used very much, because it sounds more like an unhappy word than a happy one. I don't even know if it's in the dictionary.

4. It is a big house, but each room is its own house, which is why the 'apart' is there. Each room is apart, not part of the same house. This is my own explanation.

>>4 Probably the same reason other holidays from other religions aren't very 'big': they don't involve spending millions of dollars. My relatives celebrate Easter religiously, but do little on Christmas other than give family members gifts.

>>5 The universe is not expanding from the force of the original explosion, it would have contracted long ago if that were the case. Also, it's accelerating, not slowing down, which means there's some other force at play.


I have a question: why does heat spread out? What force causes heat to be drawn into absences of heat? I realize it happens all the time, but what causes it?

>>6 2. actually, a lot of places used to use a-e (with e being failure ofc) and e was a failing grade/something you didn't want and f was even below that. eventually though, i think some university (idr the name) tweaked the grading system and just removed the e entirely/combined the e/f grade into just f.

i heard that after ww2, some states have gone back to using e instead of f. but really, i think anything could substitute for e/f (think u for unsatisfactory or n for non passing/no credit or i for insufficient etcetc).

also i think the f for fail is just a happy (?) coincidence.

>>7 Huh, I didn't know that.
One hell of a coincidence, for sure.

>>6 >>7 Let's just use HP grades.
Passing: Outstanding, Exceeds Expectations, Acceptable; failing: Poor, Dreadful, Troll.

>>6 because entropy. :/ entropy is sad, but a good explanation for why my room gets messy.

Are unipuppies real? Their the product of a unicorn and a dog.

>>9 As I said, I know it happens, and it happens all the time, but why? What force makes the heat disperse? What attracts heat to lack of heat?

Entropy is not a good explanation for why my room gets messy. Entropy proves that the only reason my room gets messy is because I don't care enough to produce work towards cleaning it.

Also, do magnets ever lose their magnetism over time? I know physical contact can do the trick, but do the domains ever re-randomize naturally?

Why do cats move their tails back and forth when idle?

Why is the sky blue?
Does the little light in the fridge stay on when you close it?
Why is Frozen so popular when it's obviously a complete pile of shit and animation?

Imeanwat

>>13
•The atmosphere filters out colors on the red side of the spectrum. What's left balances out to blue.
•Why don't you get in and find out?
•Go fuck yourself ;n; I mean.... DO YOU WANNA BUILD A SNOWMAN?!! <3

>>13the answer to question two is no, at least with models where the light was relatively new

>>13 Because the music is catchy and people can pretend it's a feminist movie (it's not)

>>1
1) Because suicide is never the right option.
2) Because E is a terrible letter. Saying F when you want to imply something is bad feels much more satisfying.
3) The word was formed around the times of the first rap battles. The original loser to an RB's rapping name was Gruntled. He got dissed and was unhappy, hence the term that was later coined.
4) Haven't you seen the lego movie? That's actually the creation story to earth. Except in real life he managed to stick all apartments together before having a change of heart. They were originally built at leas 20 metres away from each other, hence the name.

>>4 Because Easter is about a rabbit and Christmas is about a person. People are more important than rabbits.

>>6 Don't you ever get hot and sweaty? Sometimes heat just needs some space to cool off. Heat goes where heat has left because heat knows that heat is hot and wants to be as hot as heat.

>>10 Obviously not. It's much harder to make a dog fuck a unicorn in real life than it is on Adventure Time. Believe me, I've tried.

>>11 As I said, sexability.

>>12 Because they're constantly trying to find reception for their alien communicators. Cats invaded earth around the Jurassic period but lost connection to their wifi hotspot. They're using the mini-dwarves in their tails as slave labour to regain connection again so they may be free of us forever.

>>13
1) Because it would be silly if it was red.
2) Only if there's a spiritual presence in there searching for some leftovers.
3) Because blue is a cool colour, that's also why everybody likes the sky. They all saw the blue and white in Frozen and were like 'ooohhh sweeeet' and completely ignored the fact that it's obviously a formulated pile of eye-candy. Also because the founder of America and Britain's full name was Vladmir Frozen Stapleburg, leading us to associate things with the word 'Frozen' in them as original and great.

Boom, logic.

>>17 You should be a scientist.
I think you'd significantly increase productivity as a Cosmologist.

>>17 You, sir are a genius and a half.

>>17 You, sir, are a genius and a half.

>>17 You, sir, are a genius and a half.

>>12 They are thinking.

Is there any religion made within the last twenty-five years that is 100% bulletproof as far as being able to disprove any given part of it?

>>23 Perhaps not "made" so much as "discovered" for some. I wasn't entirely sure how to word this question, please have a loose interpretation of it...

>>23 You can't disprove the existence of god (the Christian one) either though.

>>25
You can't prove he/she/it exists either.

>>25 Any given part I think means something like Earth was made 5000 years ago, etc., not the main idea.

>>27 Yes. That is what I meant.

>>26 He's the teapot spinning round the sun yeah.

>>27>>28 Ah, right then.

I was just meaning to say that a lot of things religion is based on are often abstract stuff that can't be proved or disproved. Anyway I I have no answer for your question, I barely know enough about my own religion.

>>24 the whole thing about religion is that it is based on beliefs, which is why not everyone on the planet follows one religion or is atheist.

>>11 What's wrong with entropy explaining heat dispersion? Heat is energy, cool stuff is not, so heat disperses.

>>23 I guess one of the less religious religions like Agnosticism.

This thread was just screaming for this so I have to put it in here. If you think it will cause major problems and get off topic then feel free to delete this post.

Why can't an all powerful god make a perfect world?

>>31

There's a shit ton of different answers for this one, depending on your religion. I would say because there is no God.

Some would say because God is waiting for the world to become so corrupt that he'll have to step in and remake things.

Others would say because this is a test to see if one would go to heaven or be sent to hell.

And another answer would be because God uses the world for his enteartainment.

Can't believe this thread already fucking devolved into religion.

Here's mine!
Why is it that we love those who push us away, and push away those who love us?

>>34 Damn it tempest! Why? The feels!!!

Seriously though, I think it has to do with our trying to be perfect in their eyes. We want people we love to like us. This is just me saying what I'm thinking, but it seems that following this logic it's better to pull a dramatic "only I can understand myself" //walks into sunset rather than be truthful about our flaws and be honest to the person.

>>33 leeeeel

>>34 either you're the one chasing or you're the one running away. There was a wonderful quote from Mawaru Penguindrum along those lines and Himari said something that really stuck, when she was asked whether she'd want to be chased or be the one who chases, she chose to be chased "because if I was chasing someone, eventually I'd get tired." (or something along those lines, can't find the exact quote.) it's irrelevant but as someone who spent a lot of time chasing, what she said got to me, and eventually I did get tired.
To answer your question, it's just how the human psych functions. We're always looking for someone that meets our expectations, that's just it. I've pushed people away and I've chased, I'm guilty of both and I probably will be again. Love is a ridiculous game and it's incredibly hard to win.

>>33 Sorry, dude. My fault.

>>33 'devolved into religion'
That's pretty insensitive.

However, I would agree we should refrain from discussing non-facts on this threads. Talking about aspects of different religions is fine, like asking about the core beliefs of Christianity, but I think discussion about beliefs belongs elsewhere.

>>30 Why does the heat move? It's very logical to you that heat disperses, because it's happened from the beginning of time, but entropy only observes this movement, and it does not explain it. What causes the heat to move? I'm looking for specifics here.

>>40 Well, first of all you would have to establish how heat is dispersed then, why it does so. Like everything in science there are different theories. I don't quite understand what you mean by entropy only observing, but I haven't actually taken physics, so maybe I understand it wrong.

>>41 Entropy is a measure of disorder, as you know. However, that's all it is: a measure. Newton's Laws explain how things move, but they don't explain why. Why do particles move? We still don't know the essential property of particles that allows them to vibrate, and for objects to move. At least, I don't.

I think I'm looking for how it disperses, I guess. That would probably explain why it always does so. I've been having trouble finding that basic principle.

>>42 just a spitball idea that I've done absolutely no research on whatsoever that just fell out of my brain moments ago. Electromagnetic fields, maybe. Nearly everything has a charge (aside from neutrons, neutrinos, etc.). Perhaps why it moves is due to the charges of the individual particulates or atoms reacting to each other, repelling or attracting, moving the particles. Due to me not having done any testing on the hypothesis, is it possible the charges are from motion inside the sub-particles? Considering we only just discovered the physical appearance of an electron, we haven't yet discovered its innards, so where is no way of knowing that department at present. However we have gutted a proton, and saw quarks and gluon in there... neither of which I understand enough to continue outside of a guess, however I DO know that quarks are always trying to move away from each other but something about the strong force between the quark pairs and the gluon prevents them from totally separating altogether. Perhaps the answer to your question lies amidst the strange world of quantum physics?

Sorry, man. That's the best I have right now. The link before is to a place that digs science mad hard, From Quarks to Quasars (otherwise shortened to FQTQ), and might supply some in-post links to places like this awesome game to maybe chillax to if you get frustrated with unclear/undesired results, or checking out articles like this one, among other things.

I wish you luck!

Actually, I think downloaded an article quite a long time ago. I forget the source, but I think I emailed it to myself. Can't find it though. Sorry.

>>42 Man, now I'm staying up at night wondering about this. Thanks for that.
So, heat is just a manifestation of energy, what if the dispersal is just the basic fact that the thing with energy is radiating heat, and as we all know lower energy things collect energy. Of course, this doesn't really answer the question, it just rewords the question to why do lower energy things absorb energy.
That is my basic lets look at as simply as possible idea.

Speaking of heat, I have a question about it. How, if space is a vacuum, does a star radiate such heat? I understand the process from start to finish of the life of a star, but not how the heat radiates. Because it's surrounded by a vacuum, it can't be by how heat radiates through a medium, due to lack of medium. Is it the photons? The radiation? Not the neutrinos, those don't associate with Baryonic matter... I don't know. Any ideas?

>>45 Heat travels through the vacuum in the form of electromagnetic radiation. EM radiation doesn't need a medium.

>>46 Ah, that makes sense now. Thanks!

>>44 Heat is energy. An ice sculpture has more heat than a match, in this sense. It's how it's generally denoted, and it's how I've been referring to it.

The reason for this is, as I understand it, the definition of energy. All forms of energy, be it sound, light, or electricity, are based on movement. Sound is movement of air particles, light is the movement of photons, electricity is the movement of charge. Heat, at its most basic, is the inherent movement of all matter, as vibration. Heat is the most basic form of energy, in this sense, and I think that's why energy is always called heat, at least in my country.

>>43 We do not know what causes charge, but we know it exists. We don't know what causes vibration of particles, and we don't even know some separate property of matter that makes that happen exists.

Charge causes a force. That means a proton repelling a proton is the same concept as my hand pushing a textbook. Hands pushing textbooks is not the cause of motion, nor charge attracting and repelling. Why does a proton pushing on a proton cause it to move? What makes the force 'pile' on an object, causing it to accelerate? I suspect the reason particles vibrate (micro) and objects move (macro) are based on the same essential idea, on a different scale.

I'll have to research heat dissipation later.

>>48
You know what's really fucking scary?

Magnetism.

>>49 nah clowns

>>49
>>50
Magnetic clowns.


BOOM.

>>51 Nah dude, not even.
You could just live in a metal house.

Boom.
Clowns defeated.

Also, my "wondering about the world" is: How isn't this just the RTT?

>>52 Then you'd just have these scary fuckin' clowns sticking to your walls and being all creepy/clowny n shit.

And although you have a valid point I could kind of see this as a bridge between Main and Random. It's a thread for discussion of topics and questions that are too random to fit into main and too lengthy to fit into the RTT. Wouldn't mind that crossover one bit.

>>52: >>53. also >>3.

Why is C the key that has no sharps or flats? Shouldn't it be A???

>>54 It's because while A is essentially a triangle with streamers (both sharp and flat), while C is a nice, rounded curve (so neither sharp or flat).

It's simple really.

>>55 wtf

>>54
because old European guys
I hope that helps?

>>55
lol'd

oh and

>>52
it can't be an RTT since Name isn't here in it being a faggot.
That's a piece of criteria that all RTTs follow.

Why does Newton's Third Law happen? Why does exerting a force on something cause an equal and opposite force? Where does that come from?

>>58 Hi.

60 posts in and I'm soooo disappointed we haven't had a single "has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like"

>>61
You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense.

>>61 >>62
These

>>63
I'm mostly curious as to why it was brought up.
Asking about it made me do it.
Dammit bread.

Why is it that I can literally eat a pound of dark chocolate with no issue, but a single bar of milk chocolate makes me sick?

>>61 >>62 /thread.

>>64 They're made differently.

>>64 milk chocolate has more additives like sugars, milk, and cocoa butter.
For the record, dark chocolate > milk chocolate

>>64
It's cause of the cocoa butter? Cocoa butter is naturally in cocoa beans, and are extracted during manufacture. It is then added back in in different amounts depending on type. Milk has more than Dark. This is my best guess lol

My question: how the heck do I get the "!------" thing at the end of my name?

>>68
Sorry for some reason my post spammed itself like 4 times...

>>68 Pssst, there are FAQ's and an about tab at the top of the screen for such things.

not about tab, help tab. Whoops.

>>73>>74
Thanks :3

Why do people like/sing/remember the Frozen song,"Let it go," so much, it's getting pretty annoying,

>>76 I don't know the science behind why music is enjoyable.

If you are being clever, good for you. The Random Thought Thread is more for that, though.

>>76 >>77 A study was recently done in (I believe) the UK where the tested different genres, singers, etc. in various combinations of exposure (with or without peer influence, with or without hearing the songs previously, etc.)

They were expecting to find that similar people gravitated to similar music, unless peer influence was involved, in which case they would go with the crowd. However, it turned out to be completely random. What songs were popular among the groups was unexpectedly random and different between every group - even the groups with the same exposure levels.

I'll see if I can find a link to back it up. I don't remember where I first heard about it.

>>78 they*

Does lip color correspond with nipple color, and if so, why?!

>>76 >>77 my teacher once told me that there was a certain combination of chords that can be found in most popular singles, apparently they are highly appealing to most people. Have no idea if it's right though.
There must be something corresponding with the "catchiness" of the song, don't get me wrong I like the song but I just don't see it as that great... I'll admit to randomly singing it though.
I read an article on a study of the catchiest song of all time, it was based off of a bunch of factors that I can't remember, regardless the song was "We are the Champions" by Queen.

>>80 nope. Well maybe for some. Genetics I guess.

If "nondescript" is a fairly common word, why has "descript" become archaic, and why are the two not direct opposites?

Why am I learning my emotions by feeling as if my brain is doing verbs like aquatic creatures?

"Flounder at rest" is relaxed
"Writing trout" is happy
"Dead trout" is depressed

...etc.

>>83

>writing trout

Writhing*

Why are manholes round?

>>85 So they can roll.

>>85 So it's not a pain in the ass trying to line them up perfectly with a square hole.

>>88 It's not any harder to line up a square than a circle, is it?

>>89 Um well for a circle you can line it up any fucking way you want, but if a square is rotated a couple degrees it's not gonna fit.

>>90 Oh yeah......
...
....I'm going to go now.

>>90 Ohhhh, I see.

Do you think K-186f has semi-breathable air on it? Such as 21% O2 +/- 6% air capacity?

Or maybe the surface air is mustard gas, who knows

>>93 That moment when it's pure oxygen.

For the first one, I think it's like force. The matter and antimatter are locked in an eternal struggle, each "pushing" on the other with the same amount of force. Therefore, neither can be destroyed, they just cancel each other's forces out, preventing total annihilation.

I just don't understand and need to rant. Ahem.
How is binge drinking fun? I don't get it. Like why get a false euphoria through the act of destroying brain cells all so that you can be more stupid/confident/clumsy/pleasing/funny/...gay for a night and then spend the entirety of the next day feeling beyond shitty all the while wondering what the fuck you did by searching through pieces and pieces of fading memories?
Experience?
Youth?
Laughs?
Maybe I'm just an old fashioned loser but it makes no sense to me. I'd be the person that just doesn't drink but I'm awful at saying no at times...

>>96 I've done it once or twice and am not a major fan but my town has a reeeallly big culture based around it. Basically, the reason is in between 1) other people are doing it 2) It's subliminally considered a 'grown up' act by those who do it 3) You get this weird mix of feeling invincible and charming, and 4) once you reach a certain point of drunk you only want to drink more.

Hottest Pokemon champion ever!~ Cynthia. Hands down.

How does an atom lose the energy it uses to vibrate? How does that energy get transferred to other atoms?

Why do we have dreams?

Why is it called a hamburger when there's no ham in it?

>>6
Haven't read the entire thread before having the irresistible need to respond.
Heat is basically movement, and the hotter it it the more movement is there. By moving fast they hit other molecules faster and transmit their energy, thus balancing movement speed between groups of molecules and dispersing the heat

>>103 Thank you, that also answers my question at >>99. Heat transfers by collisions. The reason it doesn't go between different states very well (solid to gas, for example) is because collisions are less likely.

Now, if only I could find out what causes the movement itself...


Do groups of atoms vibrate at the same rate and direction, ie. do they sync their vibrations? Or do they remain independent of each other?

>>104 Another general answer here, but a molecule is said to vibrate with a given frequency which is the sum of the individual vibrational frequencies of it's parts. Indeed, each atom's vibrational energy is affected by it's surroundings. The movement is caused by the intramolecular forces, the attraction of the nucleus and the opposite atom's electron cloud, and the replusion between the clouds. Vibration is not observed within an individual atom.

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Modes (explains a bit about the direction/rate)

>>105 I was asking what makes any given force create movement, ie. the basic mechanism that give anything momentum. I'm not sure we know as of yet.

As for the vibration, when you say within you mean protons and neutrons do not vibrate, but the atom as a whole does?

>>106 What makes a force create movement? I can't think of the term to describe the kind of question your asking, but I'd like to respond with 'What is a force?' For this question there are many different answers, but all generally pointing towards the same thing. A force is something that exists between 2 entities that causes some sort of change between them. It deserves far more discussion, but I'll leave it at that for now.

And yes, that's what I mean. Vibrations on the level of protons and neutrons aren't considered when calculating the vibrational energy of the molecule. An atom itself is considered to have no vibrational energy. In most(stable) atoms the vibration present is considered insignificant, in other words, zero. Atoms that vibrate on the nuclear level (no matter how small this may be) are considered radioactive, and will not stay in that state. The energy must dissipate somehow.

A big question I have though regarding this topic is why for some systems equilibrium means continual motion. For the most basic example, a diatomic molecule will continually vibrate at a given frequency, never fully reaching equilibrium... or perhaps, it can be said to be in equilibrium because that state will never change unless acted upon by another force? Whereas, as I just mentioned, in a radioactive nucleus that internal energy must be minimized thus eventually resulting in a non-vibrational state. It is accepted that microscopic systems do not always follow the same rules as macroscopic ones, but where is the disconnect and defining line between them? I honestly don't expect that to be answered in my life time ;)

>>108 I assume the answer is because of scale, like you said. It's the same with Newton's Laws, they don't work on planets or atoms.

I really strongly suspect that it's just scale. I don't think there is some line where something is too small to be defined by classical mechanics, I think the bigger/smaller something is, the less accurately it is described by classical physics. The same is probably true of quantum mechanics.

I always used the metaphor of flipping coins. If you look at a large object, full of flipping coins, the ratio between heads and tails is going to be 1:1. However, when you look down deeper at much smaller objects, the ratio may be 1:5, or 1:10, or maybe even 1:0. In the coin metaphor, the observer does not know that the coins flip back and forth, and can only determine the ratio between the results. If only the observer knew the coins flip constantly, and that there is a possibility of heads or tails, then the situation would become very clear.

I feel this is exactly how research into quantum mechanics is going. We have been doing many experiments involving one proton, or one electron, and seeing what happens when you shoot it at a slit, for instance. I think if we started using two, or three, or orders of ten, we'd see that the same probabilities don't apply as accurately to bigger objects.

I certainly hope this will be answered in my lifetime.

>>109 Hello there! I was just reading your recent topic of conversation here, and I couldn't help but notice that you have left out something that might aid in your attempt to understand this area of physics: Try thinking of zero as an arbitrary unit, not an absolute. Ie, 0 degrees celcius is not the absence of temperature, etc.
I think if you look into this a bit further, it might be applicable to your theories and views on quantum and classical physic's 'scales'.

And that there, my friend, is where I join the fun here ;)

>>109 Hello there! I was just reading your recent topic of conversation here, and I couldn't help but notice that you have left out something that might aid in your attempt to understand this area of physics: Try thinking of zero as an arbitrary unit, not an absolute. Ie, 0 degrees celcius is not the absence of temperature, etc.
I think if you look into this a bit further, it might be applicable to your theories and views on quantum and classical physic's 'scales'.

And that there, my friend, is where I join the fun here ;)

>>109 Hello there! I was just reading your recent topic of conversation here, and I couldn't help but notice that you have left out something that might aid in your attempt to understand this area of physics: Try thinking of zero as an arbitrary unit, not an absolute. Ie, 0 degrees celcius is not the absence of temperature, etc.
I think if you look into this a bit further, it might be applicable to your theories and views on quantum and classical physic's 'scales'.

And that there, my friend, is where I join the fun here ;)

>>110 I'm not sure what you are getting at, to be honest. I'm not sure how treating 0 as an arbitrary unit rather than the start or end of a scale would help me understand what is going on at the quantum level.

>>113 I think it is an attempt at explaining the basic both/and but not Schrodinger cat principle by saying that 0 isn't the start of the negative and positive number lines, but an arbitrary number between, so it is both positive and negative, but not. That's what I interpreted the post as at least. Now that I think about it that is actually a much better way to describe it then the cat.

>>114 So, option C, all of the above.

That does relate to quantum superposition now that I think about it. The state of an electron is many things at once, so maybe the given state we see it in is not an absolute, but just an arbitrary state?

So, is it just a better metaphor for describing Schrodinger? In that case, I think it is better too.

Is it possible for humans to rearrange the molecular structure of liquid so instead of the molecules sliding over each other they become solid, but without having to freeze said liquid? Like make fake ice from water that turns back into water when it is no longer being acted upon?

>>116 When in science you ask "is it possible" you need to understand the context. A lot of things are probably "possible" but are way outside practicality or our technological power. I can't say 100% on your question, but my answer would be yes, its possible, but with contentions.

A. The water would still be frozen, no? Ice is just water that has slower moving molecules than water. You would still have the benefit of instant deicing at will however.

B. Matter stopping entirely is different from slowing down, I assume you mean moving at the slowest speed possible instead of an actual stop.

C. If molecular control of that scale is possible, instant de-icer is probably very low on the list of things we could do.

>>116 I'm not sure how you would rearrange the molecules and get them all to stay where they were (more or less). My understanding is when molecules change states, they don't just get closer together, they also lose energy. If they had the same amount of energy, they'd never stay that close to each other. You would also have to somehow decrease the energy levels of all the atoms at the same time.

Also, not sure why the water would revert when not being acted upon. If you kept pumping energy to make the molecules closer together and solid, you would essentially be making a fridge. I can't say if we could individually control the molecules, because right now we can't with our technology, at least on that scale.

Does dark energy gravitate?

>>119 Probably not considering it's the opposing force of gravity.

So I'm bumping this thread so people can ask any type of questions and get a serious response back for it unlike the "ask a stupid question thread" and also because it seems like something interesting for people to read over.

I mean like... couldn't we make dragons? They can't breathe fire or anything but like... lizards with wings. the whole thing with that is that dragons wings wouldn't be able to support the dragon's huge weight on thin bat-like wings. But no one said dragons had to be big. Just take a Gekko or something and mutate it with bat wings!

>>121 Yeah, that'd be pretty cool, but a lot of animal mutation science stuff is banned for ethics reasons. Maybe you should do more research on it to see if anyone has actually attempted to mutate lizards to grow wings or even if such things already exist...

1.The big bang honestly is over-hyped. I'm not a creationist or anything, I don't believe in a god, but I don't believe in the big bang either. honestly it's been so long since the beginning of the universe that we don't have much of anything to use for evidence other than theoretical physics.

2.There's no E grades because people wanted to be dramatic and make F for FAIL. Yet again, humanity cares more about form than function.

3.You can be gruntled people just don't say it much (see http://gruntle.me/)

4.Apartments used to commonly be segments of one house that where split into different living spaces (the house was split apart)

If you had a perfectly smooth, hollow sphere with a completely mirrored inside, could you store light in it? What would it look like if you opened it? Would capturing light in space vs on Earth make the light last longer? What would it look like inside?

>>124 VSauce already explained about it, but fuck it let's do this. (Ooh, I did the 'F' thing!)

If you opened it, the light would be "Absorbed" by your characteristic of unable to reflect the light. Because light speed is incomprehensible, you'll probably just saw a blink of light by the time you open the sphere or not at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRP82omMX0g

This for more, co-pas the link

>>124 Mirrors actually absorb a small amount of light every time it reflects, so you couldn't store it for long.

bump.
>>124 Light is electromagnetic energy and energy always conver into other types of energy. Some of witch is trasnferred to the mirrow I guess.

Why is this thread in the archives it looks so interesting?

>>128 Instead of playing a single thread, it's better to necrobump the old threads.

Why do we call them building, even though it has already been built?

>>129 Because English is really weird.

In this world is there anything that doesn’t have some kind of drawback?

There is such a thing as being "gruntled". It's just not commonly used as a description. :)

if the universe is so big, then why won't it fight me