SCIENCE! (questions and answers)

Anomica said:
This thread shouldn't be called science in that case, it should be called physics, or chemistry or natural science :smartarse: Not all sciences use maths and strange formulae in order to come up with an answer. Give me something of the social sciences so that I won't feel so stupid :D
Click to expand...
Social sciences  :yey:

Seriously (almost):
Science is counting. Counting requires numbers.  Numbers lead to maths. Maths are based on specific formalism sometimes referred to as strange formulae  ;) 
Qod erat demonstrandum.
 
First of all, you're welcome Iron Duke. It made me happy to see I actually learnt something in chemistry these past few weeks :innocent:
Second of all, that one with the ice cube is probably one of those tricky ones that seem easy but aren't <_<
Third of all, here's an example of a social science: economics. Feel free to ask questions about demand supply, unemployment and inflation (yes, you guessed it, thats what we've been doing for the past few weeks in econ class :blush:)!
 
Okie Natalie, here's one that bugs me -
Why do world crude oil prices go up in anticipation of an interrupted supply, even when it's not certain that something will happen?
Furthermore, when prices for crude oil do go up, why does the petroleum already at my local gas station go up too? Assume the current price is X. Then there's a war in the Middle East and the price increases by Y. Why don't they sell the petro already there at the station at Price X, and when the new petro is delivered sell at Price X+Y?
 
IronDuke said:
It's bviously been a long time since I've done this kinda thing, but my layman's theory is that the water level would rise.
Something like 10% of an iceburg sticks out of the water, and thus that amount doesn't contribute to the overall volume of the water (the 90% underwater does, though). When it melts, that extra 10% is added to the water's volume, hence you get a rise.
Unless, of course, the density of ice happens to be less than water by exactly that amount (and the more I think about it, the more I realise that it probably is. DOH!)

So, through my above deduction, the water level would probably stay the same! Logic is our friend!
Click to expand...
Almost word for word what I said.  It's linked in with Archemedis' displacement theory ;)

As for your petrol question(s), I would say that maybe the petrol shop owner/supplies wants your money.  No? :huh:
 
What Conor said is basically true. Economics is about taking risks, and about playing it safe. When world crude oil prices go up, people expect the worst (losing money), and thats why all prices go up. The petrol station guy furthermore has to pay more for the oil he is supplying to you (or expects he will haveto) and so tries to make a profit from you now in order to mitigate his losses when he has to spend more money to buy the crude oil to sell to you. In fact, the petrol station guy is being smart when he does this, because this means that he can continue selling when the prices really go up without making a loss. Make sense? Hope it does. :smartarse:
 
It's not necessarily down to just the store owner either.  The oil companies are PLCs... people sell their shares when they fear the oil supplies may be at risk.  It's a bit more complicated than just supply and demand.
 
Oh yes, certainly it's more complicated than that, but we don't want to swamp Iron Duke do we? :smartarse:
 
Yup. And in this case, they want to make the same amount of money in real terms as before, not less, so that they may continue to exist in the long run (at least your gas station does, the big corporations can afford to make losses).

Actually, change that to, 'they want YOUR money'.  :devil:
 
Here is one that bugs me - a large supermarket retailer in the UK is now packing some of its food (mailny its organinc range) in bio-degradable packaging. Now, I have been thinking about this for some time (particularly when I walk around our town in the vicinity of take-aways) - what is stopping all packaging been made bio-degradable? If a certain burger chain was to serve their burgers in this type of packaging rather than polystyrene (or whatever they use), when the pubs chuck out and every one heads there, half eats the burger and chucks it in the nearest bush - it will just degrade with no issue.

Can this be done? Can the packaging be made strong enough to cope with a (supposedly) hot burger and say a syrupy liquid? Can this type of packaging be used for other things as well? Is this simply a case of economics? If it is down to money, then that is just a poor excuse!

And do these bio-degradable packaging's actually degrade, or is this just a gimmick?
 
Ok, here's another one I've been wondering about:
What causes the glue on stamps to be sticky when licked? (newer Canadian ones are self-adhesive, but the question still stands.)
 
To Albie: An interesting one, that. I'll look into it and get back to you on it, but I suspect that something economical lies behind it, as in, it might not be profitable, or less profitable than the current packaging for burgers.

To Iron Duke: No clue. *goes off to leaf through thick chemistry books*.
 
There's a huge infrustructure already in place to manufacture and distribute the non-biodegradable packaging. There's no major economic incentive (yet) to force the end user (the restaurant) to change.
This is a big problem in Canada right now; all restaurants use biodegradable packaging except the largest (and yummiest!) coffee/donut chain - Tim Horton's. There are increasing calls to have them change their cups so that they'll break down in an environmentally safe way. You see them EVERYWHERE along major highways, as lazy people just throw them out the window too often :(

In their defense, though, Tim Horton's has taken steps to remedy the situation while they come up with a permanant solution: Customers who bring their own reusable coffee mugs recieve a 5% discount on the price, and if you don't order it "to go" they'll give you the coffee in ceramic (reusable!) mugs. This doesn't help solve the root problem, but it creates a cash incentive for customers to make better choices.

If you're REALLY concerned with the situation, write a polite letter to the company telling them why you are morally against buying products with environmentally unfriendly packaging. Tell them that others feel this way as well, and that you'd gladly go back to using their products if they had a friendlier alternative. In other words, talk to them in terms they can understand - money!

Environmental studies pays off sometimes too!
 
IronDuke said:
Ok, here's another one I've been wondering about:
What causes the glue on stamps to be sticky when licked? (newer Canadian ones are self-adhesive, but the question still stands.)
Click to expand...
I would guess this comes down to some sort of chemical reaction when the stamp is moistened. But I ain't a student of science, so I'll leave others to fill it in with more detail.

As for the problems with the fast food restaurants packaging, my initial concern is the litter (as that is what you see first - and I would rather a fully degradable discarded wrapping rot in a bush than a never ever degrade carton), secondary is the breaking down of this in the land-fill sites - but I have always thought that if there was a drive here (as there is in Canada), people will buy into that! I'm seriously thinking along the lines of approaching my local MP on this (it also helps that his party is trying to sell the "green talk" to the voters, at present).
 
JackKnife said:
Social sciences  :yey:

Seriously (almost):
Science is counting. Counting requires numbers.  Numbers lead to maths. Maths are based on specific formalism sometimes referred to as strange formulae  ;) 
Qod erat demonstrandum.
Click to expand...
This is an epistemological (sp?) issue, I suppose. Not everything knowable is countable. There is a host of interpretive sciences that don't regard counting and numbers as the only path to truth. I have no major issues with maths or the natural sciences except that many of their proponents seem to be "science facists" ;) that discard everything that's not presented in hard numbers and facts. If you want some proper confusion, read some Derrida about deconstructionism, for example, and try to keep an open mind (it's hard but prepares the ground for really interesting discussions, especially with physicists, chemists and mathematicians). The social-constructionist (and -constructivist) movements are well worth to read up on when looking into most kinds of research. Personally I prefer understanding to explanations, if you know what I mean by that distinction...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top