I wonder if any of the more scientifically minded people on here could help me, please.

[Chris Koziarz]

Hello guys!

Did you know a new organ has been discovered in the human body in a place where they never realised there was an organ before because it was seen as tissue with lots of liquid-filled compartments in? Scientists hope that this discovery could bring to light more information about how cancer is spread.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...n-scientists-discovery-new-york-a8275851.html

I found this fascinating. I hope you do too.

Interesting indeed. I'd say not only for cancer tests. Spread of toxins from venomous insects, arachnids and snake bites starts from there and travels through lymph system. If the interstitium layer is thick, I guess it may slow down the toxins. But given primary function of interstitium be the shock absorption to the internal organs, the layer around legs and hands (wehere most snake bites occur) may be thinner. But if the bite occurs to torso, the typical first aid reccmendation (pressure bandaging) may need to be revisited.

 

[Horsa]

Interesting indeed. I'd say not only for cancer tests. Spread of toxins from venomous insects, arachnids and snake bites starts from there and travels through lymph system. If the interstitium layer is thick, I guess it may slow down the toxins. But given primary function of interstitium be the shock absorption to the internal organs, the layer around legs and hands (wehere most snake bites occur) may be thinner. But if the bite occurs to torso, the typical first aid reccmendation (pressure bandaging) may need to be revisited.

I'm glad you thought it was as interesting as I did. I would also add that because the interstitium allows free flow of fluid throughout the body it also means that if these toxins can spread more freely. It's good that it stops the internal organs from feeling the full impact in case of accidents & bumps though. I agree that the discovery of this new organ is a major breakthrough in medical science & could help in many ways.

 

[Horsa]

Did you know that even gently stroking an owl can hurt the owl? https://www.dw.com/en/want-to-pet-that-cute-owl-think-again/a-37040894
This was news to me as I've seen owls in owl sanctuaries, town centres & shopping centres & got told by their handlers that I could stroke them gently on the stomach. I won't do that again now I know the damage it can cause. I love owls & think they're very beautiful.

 

[Horsa]

I watched this on the science forum I'm on the other day & found it fascinating & agree with much of what is being said like the main point which is that space & our universe is full of mathematical symbols in a geometric sense. I love his way of making everything sound so easy. It did leave me with 3 questions though. The questions are "I didn't know that there are now 8 planets as Pluto is now not classed as a planet now. Why not? If Pluto is no longer a planet, what is it? & "Since when has Pluto not been a planet?"

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I watched this on the science forum I'm on the other day & found it fascinating & agree with much of what is being said like the main point which is that space & our universe is full of mathematical symbols in a geometric sense. I love his way of making everything sound so easy. It did leave me with 3 questions though. The questions are "I didn't know that there are now 8 planets as Pluto is now not classed as a planet now. Why not? If Pluto is no longer a planet, what is it? & "Since when has Pluto not been a planet?"

I found Pluto's "planethood" question addressed here:
https://www.space.com/12709-pluto-dwarf-planet-decision-5-years-anniversary-iau.html
So in 2005, Pluto became a member of a different category of objects in solar system: "dwarf planets", when another object bigger than Pluto was discovered in the Kuiper Belt of objects and solar system model had to be altered as a result. There are apparently many thousands of them "dwarf planets". The controversy is whether a "dwarf planet" should be classified as "planet" (such as Earth) or not. Those astronomers who invented the term say no. Others, e.g. the scientists at NASA who sent a space probe to observe Pluto, disagree and say "Pluto is a planet!". What a perfect example of a cognitive bias based on personal interest! But both types, being intelligent scientists do agree that dwarf planets are quite different from the original 8 planets our grand fathers used to know, and that's what our children will be thought at schools.

 

[Horsa]

I found Pluto's "planethood" question addressed here:
https://www.space.com/12709-pluto-dwarf-planet-decision-5-years-anniversary-iau.html
So in 2005, Pluto became a member of a different category of objects in solar system: "dwarf planets", when another object bigger than Pluto was discovered in the Kuiper Belt of objects and solar system model had to be altered as a result. There are apparently many thousands of them "dwarf planets". The controversy is whether a "dwarf planet" should be classified as "planet" (such as Earth) or not. Those astronomers who invented the term say no. Others, e.g. the scientists at NASA who sent a space probe to observe Pluto, disagree and say "Pluto is a planet!". What a perfect example of a cognitive bias based on personal interest! But both types, being intelligent scientists do agree that dwarf planets are quite different from the original 8 planets our grand fathers used to know, and that's what our children will be thought at schools.

Thank you very much for your information.

Edit: I realised my response closed discussions down so decided to open things up again by asking a couple of questions.

1. Do you think everything has been discovered in the universe or that there are still things we can discover & why?
2. What do you think about the demotion of Pluto as a planet? Do you still think it should be classed as a planet or not & why? I'll use an example. When I was a little girl miniature horses were called ponies. Nowadays they're called miniature horses. What do I call them? Ponies, of course. Therefore I still think that Pluto should be seen as a planet. They're calling it a dwarf planet but a dwarf planet is still a planet at the end of the day in the same way as a miniature horse is still both a pony & a horse.

 

[mrzz]

On a lighter note, Pluto was demoted shortly before the first Brazilian went to space on a mission to the International Space Station. The saying here was that as soon as a Brazilian got to space there was a missing planet.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Thank you very much for your information.

Edit: I realised my response closed discussions down so decided to open things up again by asking a couple of questions.

1. Do you think everything has been discovered in the universe or that there are still things we can discover & why?
2. What do you think about the demotion of Pluto as a planet? Do you still think it should be classed as a planet or not & why? I'll use an example. When I was a little girl miniature horses were called ponies. Nowadays they're called miniature horses. What do I call them? Ponies, of course. Therefore I still think that Pluto should be seen as a planet. They're calling it a dwarf planet but a dwarf planet is still a planet at the end of the day in the same way as a miniature horse is still both a pony & a horse.

Ad 1 the answer is obvious. There are infinitely many things in the universe that we don't know yet ready to be discovered for as long as civilisation exists. The only case the alternative is possible would be if civilisation collapsed but a chance of such event is still very small, although imaginable now in 21 century as we enter Anthropocene, e.g. due to planetary resource depletion or climate change. Likely won't happen in our lifetime yet.
Ad 2 I already said I personally don't care. But I tend to agree more with those who argue that we should change the way we think about Pluto due to new evidence observed, especially the fact it's not the largest of the objects in the Kuiper Belt. When science progresses and new things are discovered that make old beliefs "odd" or even incorrect, names and classifications can be changed. I could give many examples of scientific names (especially native plants down under) that have been changed recently, because they've been originally misclassified as belonging to wrong genus or even wrong familly. Eucalypt trees for example: my favourite species eucalyptus ficifolia has been renamed corymbia ficifolia, even though I still call it eucalyptus (my cognitive bias) because I like it. Common names are not changed that often, even if name change should be required according to common sense, because people like me who like the objects in question would feel sad. Example: australian magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen) is a misnomer because it belongs to the butcherbird familly and not corvidae family as the european settlers incorrectly thought. A serious misclassification at the family level. It just begs that common name of Gymnorhina tibicen be renamed to far more accurate "magpie butcherbird" but strangely, society does not want to do it.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

On a lighter note, Pluto was demoted shortly before the first Brazilian went to space on a mission to the International Space Station. The saying here was that as soon as a Brazilian got to space there was a missing planet.

Sorry to derail the topic but I read that Marcos Pontes a Brazilian Air Force pilot you're talking about here, officially accepted the position for Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation in new ult-R gov in Brazil. Hmmm, the fact that such personality (a military career-man with zero scholar records and memoirs of a "boy in space" his only publications), living in Houston TX (will he move to Brasilia, then?) is being considered fit for that position, indicates how dysfunctional the gov is question is. Bigger dysfunction in that gov rather than Pluto's shakeup in astronomy. Sorry to spoil your light mood; let's take it jokingly as "a fall of a sky boy from Houston like a planet from the sky", your original intention.

 

[Horsa]

Ad 1 the answer is obvious. There are infinitely many things in the universe that we don't know yet ready to be discovered for as long as civilisation exists. The only case the alternative is possible would be if civilisation collapsed but a chance of such event is still very small, although imaginable now in 21 century as we enter Anthropocene, e.g. due to planetary resource depletion or climate change. Likely won't happen in our lifetime yet.
Ad 2 I already said I personally don't care. But I tend to agree more with those who argue that we should change the way we think about Pluto due to new evidence observed, especially the fact it's not the largest of the objects in the Kuiper Belt. When science progresses and new things are discovered that make old beliefs "odd" or even incorrect, names and classifications can be changed. I could give many examples of scientific names (especially native plants down under) that have been changed recently, because they've been originally misclassified as belonging to wrong genus or even wrong familly. Eucalypt trees for example: my favourite species eucalyptus ficifolia has been renamed corymbia ficifolia, even though I still call it eucalyptus (my cognitive bias) because I like it. Common names are not changed that often, even if name change should be required according to common sense, because people like me who like the objects in question would feel sad. Example: australian magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen) is a misnomer because it belongs to the butcherbird familly and not corvidae family as the european settlers incorrectly thought. A serious misclassification at the family level. It just begs that common name of Gymnorhina tibicen be renamed to far more accurate "magpie butcherbird" but strangely, society does not want to do it.

Thank you very much.

About your answer to question 2, my point was a dwarf planet is still a planet but a small 1 as emphasized by its name in the same way that a miniature horse is still a horse as emphasized by its name but it's also a pony as a pony is a small horse as I stated in my example before therefore I'd still class Pluto as a planet.

 

[mrzz]

Sorry to derail the topic but I read that Marcos Pontes a Brazilian Air Force pilot you're talking about here, officially accepted the position for Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation in new ult-R gov in Brazil. Hmmm, the fact that such personality (a military career-man with zero scholar records and memoirs of a "boy in space" his only publications), living in Houston TX (will he move to Brasilia, then?) is being considered fit for that position, indicates how dysfunctional the gov is question is. Bigger dysfunction in that gov rather than Pluto's shakeup in astronomy. Sorry to spoil your light mood; let's take it jokingly as "a fall of a sky boy from Houston like a planet from the sky", your original intention.

That's the guy. He is a terrible choice for a Minister of Science and Techology, and the worst part is the rest is even worst than him. The joke around here now is that he has the same qualifications for a Minister that Laika had.

 

[Horsa]

That's the guy. He is a terrible choice for a Minister of Science and Techology, and the worst part is the rest is even worst than him. The joke around here is now that he has the same qualifications for a Minister that Laika had.

Since you're in a jokey mood, I'll let you into some Yorkshire slang from where I live & join in the jokes. Where I come from when I was a little girl "to laik out" meant to play out so I guess that Laika liked to "Laik about". Lol.

 

[Horsa]

I wonder what you think of this.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/offb...f-scottish-lab/ar-BBStgGv?ocid=spartanntp_edu

I have got a few questions planned for later but I'm a bit busy at the moment.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I wonder what you think of this.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/offb...f-scottish-lab/ar-BBStgGv?ocid=spartanntp_edu

I have got a few questions planned for later but I'm a bit busy at the moment.

Very interesting to look at this relic and figure out how little people new about convalescent electrons that determine chemical properties of elements displayed therein. The groups (I through VIII) are not determined by convalescent properties but by the number of bonds with hydrogen (RH or hydrydes) and oxygen (RO or oxides) where R is the element in question. Even back then, people must have known (Mendeleev first) that H binds to 1 chemical bond O binds to 2 chemical bonds, and arranged everything vertically according to number of bonds. E.g. group IV are elements forming RH4 and RO2 substances. Interestingly some elements are in two groups, because multiple oxides exists. E.g. copper: both Cu2O & CuO4 exists. Same with others of this group of best electricity conductors: Ag & Au. BTW, the reason they are such good conductors is the large number of convalescent electrons. O itself is in group VI (by virtue of OH2 substance - water) and H is in group I (reciprocally H2O), but there are no noble gases there because back then, it must have been a puzzle why noble gasses don't react with H nor O.
So it was quite remarkable they categorised all elements they knew into groups similar to those in modern table. They placed alkalines correctly. They mixed metaloids & non-metals into the metals but there was no way to definitely separate them as electricity/heat conduction was not defining property of metals.
Also note the quite accurate atomic masses in the table. But heavier elements become less accurate, with uranium displayed as U240 rather than U238. Still very impressive piece of science given they knew nothing about atomic structure and must have used very mysterious (to me) method of measuring the atomic mass because mass spectrometer was unknown back then
https://www.livescience.com/20581-weigh-atom.html

 

[mrzz]

Also note the quite accurate atomic masses in the table. But heavier elements become less accurate, with uranium displayed as U240 rather than U238. Still very impressive piece of science given they knew nothing about atomic structure and must have used very mysterious (to me) method of measuring the atomic mass because mass spectrometer was unknown back then

They probably would measure mass indirectly using knowledge of Avogadro's law (but I am guessing). Loss of precision on mass on heavier nuclei also to be expected as the effects of the binding energy becomes stronger, specially in a very stable nucleus as U238 (and, as you said, they had no clue about it back then).

 

[Chris Koziarz]

They probably would measure mass indirectly using knowledge of Avogadro's law (but I am guessing). Loss of precision on mass on heavier nuclei also to be expected as the effects of the binding energy becomes stronger, specially in a very stable nucleus as U238 (and, as you said, they had no clue about it back then).

Avogadro's law (molar volume as a function of temp & pressure only) applies to gasses only. I can imagine they vaporised some liquids (e.g. Hg) but measuring the weight and partial pressure of the resulting Hg vapours was also not trivial but perhaps possible 150y ago. Still, for solids, they must have no clue other than the piece of heavy substance "feels heavy", and indeed U238 is heavy. They did not have X-ray crystallography, to determine the packing of atoms in crystals; consequently the molar volume of crystals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_volume
Roentgen did not discover X-rays until late 19th century.

 

[Horsa]

Very interesting to look at this relic and figure out how little people new about convalescent electrons that determine chemical properties of elements displayed therein. The groups (I through VIII) are not determined by convalescent properties but by the number of bonds with hydrogen (RH or hydrydes) and oxygen (RO or oxides) where R is the element in question. Even back then, people must have known (Mendeleev first) that H binds to 1 chemical bond O binds to 2 chemical bonds, and arranged everything vertically according to number of bonds. E.g. group IV are elements forming RH4 and RO2 substances. Interestingly some elements are in two groups, because multiple oxides exists. E.g. copper: both Cu2O & CuO4 exists. Same with others of this group of best electricity conductors: Ag & Au. BTW, the reason they are such good conductors is the large number of convalescent electrons. O itself is in group VI (by virtue of OH2 substance - water) and H is in group I (reciprocally H2O), but there are no noble gases there because back then, it must have been a puzzle why noble gasses don't react with H nor O.
So it was quite remarkable they categorised all elements they knew into groups similar to those in modern table. They placed alkalines correctly. They mixed metaloids & non-metals into the metals but there was no way to definitely separate them as electricity/heat conduction was not defining property of metals.
Also note the quite accurate atomic masses in the table. But heavier elements become less accurate, with uranium displayed as U240 rather than U238. Still very impressive piece of science given they knew nothing about atomic structure and must have used very mysterious (to me) method of measuring the atomic mass because mass spectrometer was unknown back then
https://www.livescience.com/20581-weigh-atom.html

It is fascinating to see how much things have changed through time especially scientific discoveries. It's also fascinating to see how people lived before certain inventions were created which we take for granted now & how they thought before they discovered information that we take for granted now. That's why I find history fascinating. I will get up to speed with all your information later & give you a proper answer like you give me.

I haven't yet had my peppermint tea or coffee.
Without them on a morning I can't think for toffee.
I know you insist on a proper answer & don't like me acting daft.
So, of peppermint tea or coffee I need to have a draft.
I'm definitely not ignoring you.
I also have other things I need to do.
Therefore I'll see you soon.
Maybe sometime this afternoon.

 

[mrzz]

Avogadro's law (molar volume as a function of temp & pressure only) applies to gasses only. I can imagine they vaporised some liquids (e.g. Hg) but measuring the weight and partial pressure of the resulting Hg vapours was also not trivial but perhaps possible 150y ago. Still, for solids, they must have no clue other than the piece of heavy substance "feels heavy", and indeed U238 is heavy. They did not have X-ray crystallography, to determine the packing of atoms in crystals; consequently the molar volume of crystals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_volume
Roentgen did not discover X-rays until late 19th century.

Indeed, that's why I inserted the "indirectly", maybe using some gaseous molecule, I would guess they already had a good idea of the compositions of those molecules. I remember that enrichment of Uranium uses some Uranium oxide (EDIT: so maybe they knew back in the XIX century about those oxide gases which contained uranium) ... Hard to think about any other way, given the knowledge of the time, but science history is quite a tricky thing, we are too biased by our own knowledge. A lot of interesting techniques simply sank into oblivion...

Or they were simply extrapolating...

 

[Horsa]

Indeed, that's why I inserted the "indirectly", maybe using some gaseous molecule, I would guess they already had a good idea of the compositions of those molecules. I remember that enrichment of Uranium uses some Uranium oxide... Hard to think about any other way, given the knowledge of the time, but science history is quite a tricky thing, we are too biased by our own knowledge. A lot of interesting techniques simply sank into oblivion...

Or they were simply extrapolating...

The history of science is fascinating though especially when it comes to medical history. It's pretty hard to imagine that people once believed that Galen's theory of circulation was the true theory of circulation.

 

[Horsa]

I've just seen this & thought that it would be interesting to know how you think this is going to affect us. I'm going to be a busy bee as it's something else to be discussing & I owe Chris a proper answer yet.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/tech...s-what-we-know/ar-BBSCqjf?ocid=spartanntp_edu

How do you think this event is going to affect us?