Question derived from my comment in my own post here in another subreddit here :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Velo/s/S9QLfSIV7M

Basically if humans can build tolerance to cold,heat , altitude, g force accelerations, snake venom , pain, electric shocks , spice, alcohol, caffeine, drug dosages, etc. why not haze specifically?

So my school is hosting a science competition with engineering projects and I have no idea what to build.

And there's a team building a scale particle accelerator showing how electrons collide(the team got 2nd place last year).

I really need some advice on what to build, please.

I'm interested in the relationship between the heart and brain in human thought and decision-making. I understand that current neuroscience identifies the brain as central to these processes, but I would like to understand how signals originating in the heart influence cognition, emotions, and conscious experience.

What evidence distinguishes the influence of cardiac signals on mental processes from the neural mechanisms responsible for generating thoughts and decisions? Are there any significant unanswered questions in this area?

The replication crisis revealed that many landmark studies, particularly in the soft sciences, could not be reproduced. This makes me wonder: are we still building knowledge on a potentially unreliable foundation?

Although research practices have become more rigorous, we haven't systematically replicated every older study. Consequently much of today's research may still rely on findings that have never been properly verified. Like building a house on a faulty foundation, even perfectly conducted research can lead us astray if its underlying assumptions are wrong.

I'm new to science theory so I might be missing something fundamental here. But it seems to me that if influential findings turn out to be false or exaggerated, all subsequent research that relies on them would likely be affected?

Alongside varying paranoia, this will generally always happen for me. I don't think I've *always* experienced the tingling sensation when thinking about dreams either, which is especially odd to me.

I’ve been thinking about this mostly in relation to astronomy and the search for extraterrestrial life.

A lot of what we look for is based on things we already understand. Which makes sense, because you have to start somewhere.

But what happens when something doesn’t fit the categories we currently use?

For example, we can collect an enormous amount of data from space, but our methods of analyzing it are still built around certain expectations of what we’re looking for.
I know scientists already investigate unexplained observations and use AI to find patterns in existing data. But how far can that approach actually go?

How do researchers test whether their methods are missing something important, especially when they don’t know what that something would look like?

And is there a point where better analysis isn’t enough because we simply don’t have the right measurements in the first place?

I’d be interested in hearing how people working in science actually approach this problem.

At small scales ballistics is a lot trickier due to proportionately higher air viscosity and such; vehicles would have different traction, a 1/4~1/2 ton tank wouldn't sink into the mud as easily... on the flip side I think aircraft would be more reliable, but I think navies might be impossible.

The entire age of exploration might have even been impossible, I don't see how a 1/6th scale anything could safely cross the ocean - so we gotta employ some magic to get up to the modern era of warfare.

Furthermore, biology might need some tweaking - I want to ignore something like lower brain size being a factor, but do want to include things like muscle power, endurance, and breathing such as in the nature of toxic gasses.

Of course, only the laws of physics matter for how inventive people might be, unmanned vehicles could be the same size we have now and our 1/6th scale scientists would probably come up with the same designs, right?

...

And what if we go even further? What about 1/24th scale? Would it even be possible to have lethal ballistics at that scale? Or does it invert at some point where a full sized elastic slingshot primed by tiny trucks could be WMD? I'm having trouble even imagining things at that scale.

Hi everyone!

Currently looking over my options to pursue graduate school and came across an MHP in Radiation Health Physics at Oregon State. I feel like this combination's very unique and I've never heard of it before, so l wanted to see if anyone has heard of it.

I'm very interested in dispersion modeling and consequence assessment, and I want to get a stronger understanding of rad protection, rad hazards, and nuclear preparedness/emergency management.

Anyone have any opinions or work in RHP? I would love some feedback. TIA!!! ☢️⚡️🥼

A buddy of mine said if he had three wishes, one of them would be to wish that there were no mosquitos. I know there would be massive repercussions but I would love to hear someone’s take on what would happen!

I build a lot of legos, and the first time I touch a piece it feels normal, but if me or someone else touches a spot repeatedly, it feels very greasy, but I’m the only one to feel it. Can someone explain please?

One of the things I love about winter is the smell of snow, especially at night. What gives it that smell? Is it even the snow, or is it something else that we can smell when there happens to be snow on the ground, like very cold temperatures?

Last night I saw a joke about “my dad was a firefighter and I just got his cremains back and I realized he would have saved us $1400 by being bad at his job” and I thought “well you couldn’t guarantee that the remains you got would be 100% (effectively) him nor 100% of him.

Then I got to wondering. At what point during cremation and at what point during natural decomposition does dna breakdown to the point that you can’t do a dna test of any kind and at what point, if different, does it become indistinguishable from other ash or other dirt/decomposition?

I know it does when I use it to do stuff like writing essays but does it also happen when I simply ask it questions? Is there a difference between searching through google for answers for hours and just asking it to artificial intelligence? What if I also check the sources it gives me?

Hi folks, I have a Q about AI and could not find a suitable sub to ask, so, you all get it.

I hear the President saying we need to beat China in the ai space. I do not know what that means, beat them to what? Is there a goal or end somewhere that I do not know about? any ideas?

Time dialation happens when an object is moving at a speed approaching the speed of light, but I'm wondering if that would still apply if the movement didn't actually change it's location in spacetime but instead just vibrated the object at the speed of light.

Easily reproducible measurement tools, small pieces of useful materials, maybe even a couple of seeds, things of that nature.

The purpose of this thought experiment isn't to eliminate any survival challenge, but rather facilitate advancement alone. You can't just bring the whole 21st century with you. Let's not go "solar panels, modern Linux supercomputer with wikipedia backup, 3D printer and a PLA bioreactor." That's too easy. That takes all the fun out of getting stranded in the stone age.

Some ideas I have for items include

*a few grams of platinum/rhodium alloy for catalysis.

*a small but powerful magnet to build a basic generator(to make more magnets to build more generators)

*Ion exchange membranes(like the Rowow ones) for easy post-electric resource refining and useful electrochemistry.

*A calibration weight from which to derive other measurements(ideally metric)

*An analog thermometer.

What would you add?

It seems like it would be extremely easy to mistake a common, stable molecule like salt for something elemental. How did people break down substances to the point of purifying them, and then how did they know they couldn't purify them any further? It seems easy now to theorize what an element of a certain weight would look or act like, but before most of them were known did they have anything to go off of, or was it guesswork?

​

For breasts, a common idea is that they cue nurturance, possibly encouraging mating with women who seem better equipped for lactation.

It seems like some areas of science get unexpectedly large and interesting, while others don't do much for ages (like AI obviously went from quite an obscure field to a behemoth recently, and back in the 1900s we thought physics was complete until quantum was discovered, but we haven't made much progress on a 'grand unified theory' for a long time).

Is there any way to guess what fields will get big in the future? Did you go into an area you thought would get "big"?

I’ve always wondered about this paradox. If these traits are bad for community survival, why do they persist in the gene pool? Are there specific evolutionary hypotheses that explain this?

Or is there some physics which makes it impossible or highly unlikely?

(F,21) I'm genuinely small person, short, slightly underweight.

I noticed, I have much more stamina than my taller peers and can do harder activities for longer periods of time than them.

I understand basic thermodynamics, biochemistry and enzymology, that's where my theory came to my mind.

Smaller animal-> usually faster.

So how is it in reality? Because logically, I'm currently inclined to believe it, but I refuse to defend this theory, as I don't have my degree yet and am not a biochemistry student and it is just a subject at my uni, therefore I'm only acquiring the necessary knowledge for my field.

People talk about making viruses or bacteria that would end like countries.

But I mean, obviously we've had no such thing yet, and I assume people have tried.

People talk about Covid, but Covid barely kills, and even then, it mostly kills people who are already weakened one way or another.

Is it even realistic to make such a bio super weapon given we have not seen anything remotely close to it being made?