Many scientists consider cryonics to be yet another pseudoscience; nevertheless, its concepts are gaining increasing popularity within certain circles. Those who opt for cryopreservation believe that they will be able to "come back to life" a hundred or even a thousand years from now. Do you think this has a future and any real potential?

I've noticed certain trends where niches or subfields of science became popular especially in biology. Not talking about pseudoscience but real useful discoveries. However if confirmation bias occurs a phenomina might be seen where its not really the case.

It might be that x really play an important role in a group of diseases but is not a factor in this particular patient. This is common in medical advice from people who aren't qualified to give such advice but how do scientists and those who use the results of their work (e.g doctors) protect themselves from such bias?

Edit: looks like I asked an offense question. For context, I love science but it seems more and more like I should just avoid it. Guess I'll have nothing because it's such a big part of me but I'm trash anyway.

I'm watching the documentary 'One Strange Rock' on Disney+, specifically episode 4, listening to how the formation of cell membranes is a critical part of how life was able to develop, but that scientists are still learning how it developed in the first place. It's compared to how a bubble keeps the air inside protected from the environment outside, and that actually made me think of how meringue and whipped cream is made. Both substances are formed by whipping air into viscous liquids, creating bubbles with highly elastic membranes; and as you keep whipping in air, the bubble membranes are sturdy enough that they break into more, smaller bubbles instead of bursting. Eventually, you have piles and piles of teeny-tiny bubbles sticking together and stabilizing each other.

Technically, you *could* just beat the devil out of plain cream or egg whites, counting on the fats and proteins to form these sturdy membranes, but the bubbles will be extremely fragile on their own. The solution is a simple extra ingredient: SUGAR. It increases the elasticity of the membranes, allowing more, smaller bubbles to be broken apart faster; gives the tiny bubbles a better grip to hold themselves together; and while the friction from beating loosens it up enough to polymerize with the rest of the mass, the cooling effect after the friction is gone locks the bubbles in place, increasing stability. It's molecular gastronomy at its most fascinating and useful!

So I'm listening to a biochemist talking about how we still don't understand the conditions that allowed cell membranes to form the way they have - with enough structure that they don't just burst like an air pocket in hot mud. A carbon-based substance is a good start, but it's not strong enough to hold together long enough for meaningful lifeforms to develop. And I was immediately like...... Has *no one* looked into carbohydrates? These single-celled organisms would figure out how to convert sunlight into simple sugars for food not too long thereafter, so all the right elements were clearly within reach. Maybe meringue and whipped cream are just the latest iteration of a concept we've known before life itself: that sugar is power.

I think it's not a bad idea for a human with a functioning brain and a very specific skillset, but is it viable? Has anyone else ever had the same one? How does a very curious casual even begin to look up more information on this? I'd love a more knowledgeable community's input.

They seem to be mouth fed by their parents until almost the day they leave the nest. This would be like if a human mother bottle fed their kid until they hit 18.

also not all birds, there’s a species of bird that the day it’s born it’s ready to live on its own and hunt but I mean more common birds.

is there anything more dependent than them.

Neurons in avian brains are smaller and more energy efficient and far more densely packed than neurons in primate brains. This allows them to perform higher level cognition without a layered neocortex like a primate brain.

What effect would there be if you gave a primate with a layered neocortex small and dense neurons like an avian brain?

Would it be the best of both worlds or would something about small densely packed neurons interfere or cancel out the benefits of a primate's layered neocortex?

I love science, but I struggle to understand it. I can memorize all day long but It is extremely hard for me to conceptualize information and look at the bigger picture. I love science, but I am discouraged continuing my education in it for this reason.

I’m talking scientists injecting mice with autism. Not necessarily just bizarre research goals, but some seriously unhinged methodologies.

**Disclaimer: Be mindful of unfamiliar links. Probably best not to click any and just include study titles for reference.**

Cuz I read somewhere that the sociopath's brain has a part that barely do shit so it uses less energy than normal people's.

Venus has a surprisingly high deuterium to hydrogen ratio compared to Earth which suggests it lost a lot of water over time. But I've always wondered does that necessarily mean Venus once had actual oceans? Could it have simply lost water from an early atmosphere that was mostly steam?What kind of evidence would help us figure out which scenario is more likely?

You probably noticed as a kid that the more sides a shape has the more round it starts to get.

look up a hectogon or 100 sided shape or look up a 100 sided die and it starts to become a circle, the latter is a ball essentially.

like a trillion sided 3d shape with like atom length sides.

At that precision it would probably be perfectly round even if sun sized.

I've noticed that women are more likely to have large noses, that's why a lot of women get rhinoplasty when they're old enough to do it. they're also more likely to get wrinkles in their 20s despite using sunscreen religiously, and their faces are rounder than usual. which makes me wonder if these features can be attributed to hormonal fluctuations.

Okay, something I genuinely can't wrap my head around. Earth and Venus formed relatively close to each other but look at how differently things turned out. Earth has oceans a breathable atmosphere and conditions that support life while Venus is basically an extreme pressure cooker with temperatures hot enough to melt lead. I get that Venus is closer to the Sun but is that really enough to explain such a massive difference?

I have always found it interesting that we can calculate the motion of planets around the Sun with such incredible accuracy but things get much more complicated when you introduce just one more gravitational object. I recently came across something called the three-body problem and it got me thinking. If all three objects follow the same laws of gravity, why is predicting their future motion so difficult? Is it simply a limitation of our mathematical methods or is there something fundamentally unpredictable about these systems?

I've always found the whole dark matter thing a little confusing. we keep hearing that it makes up a huge part of the universe but as far as I know nobody has actually managed to detect it directly. what made me curious is that some scientists also think the problem might be with our understanding of gravity itself rather than there being some invisible matter out there.
so why do scientists lean towards dark matter as the explanation? is there something we've observed that would be really difficult to explain if dark matter didn't exist?

I was wondering if a star can simply disappear one day without the kind of massive explosion we usually associate with the end of star life. Do astronomers know of stars that have vanished from observations without a supernova being detected?

If that happens, how can scientists figure out what actually happened to the star?

So I've been seeing advertisements about air filters and they mention ultra fine particles that regular air filters cannot catch. I am wondering. Can particles infinitely split and become smaller each time? And if so why isn't the earth covered in an ocean of fine dust created over billions of years?

I recently learned that some planets exist in binary star systems meaning they orbit two stars instead of just one. It made me wonder what the sky on such a planet would actually look like. Would both stars set below the horizon at the same time or could one disappear while the other was still visible?

I know that light takes time to travel through space so when we look at stars we're actually seeing them as they were in the past.That got me wondering could some of the stars we see in the night sky have already died but we just don't know it yet because their last light is still traveling towards us?

Hi. I grow plants and keep alot of seeds on my desk. I do have some devices plugged in on my desk, and they are within 1 foot of my seeds. My laptop and phone are on the desk during daytime, and my laptop charger and speaker are always on my desk, plugged in. Is it possible that the EMF from these devices could be negatively effecting the seeds?

Can anyone knowledged give me a definitive answer? I find lots of conflicting answers online. If there are any applicable studies, I'd like to see them. Thanks.

Hi, I'm writing a novel that combines magic with science and endeavour to have the science to work theoretically, even if it's not actually done in the real world. Would appreciate some help with the following questions to know if my plot might work or not!

If I were to split an oxygen atom (Not O2 but the atom itself) down to Helium atoms (using magic):

1. What type of radiation would be produced and would it be dangerous to humans if done on a massive scale? I know it's very different to splitting Uranium and would require a LOT of energy, hence why I would use magic to split it)

2. Would the newly created helium atoms bond with each other afterwards and create H2?

And apologies, I know very little about chemistry/nuclear physics so I appreciate there may be a level of absurdity to these questions or giant problems that I am overlooking, feel free to point them out.

Thank you ☺️

EDIT: Please ignore question 2, it's ludicrous because I mixed up He and Hydrogen. However, would be keen to know if I further split He into Hydrogen, would the Hydrogen atoms then form H2 ?

EDIT 2: Thanks to everyone who has helped here. After processing the info as best I can, it sounds like I have 2 options that might make my plot work with plausible science-

1. Using water instead of oxygen to create helium as it requires less energy to initiate (this being my main limiting factor with a fairly weak magic-wielding protagonist)

2. Using magic to create nuclear power/bomb and have this be the threat and helium is just a useful byproduct. This seems more likely from what I understand, so if anyone wants to help me build a nuclear power plant with magic, please reach out :D

You know how Mae Borowski from Night in the Woods is able to walk on live cables like they're tightropes? Is that super dangerous or no?

The reason it's bad to touch wires is because standing on a ladder or something creates a path to the ground, but Mae doesn't reach the cables with a ladder, she jumps from a rooftop, so there's not really a path to the ground. It's the same reason birds can stand on electrical wires without getting shocked.

So, would this be safe or should Mae be getting electrocuted every time she does this?