Recent comments in /f/askscience

A18o14 t1_j2dwhh7 wrote

They state it eliminates the tremor, that is just a side effect of PD so yes, it just deals with the symptoms. Funny enough most people with tremors do not have PD but jus a "Essential tremor". Bad enough but not that severe.

With PD parts of your brain are dying, so if a therapy does not deal with that it is not curing PD.

1

Taalnazi t1_j2duhrm wrote

Thanks. Hmm... and so far, no star has been discovered yet in their carbon-burning or more advanced-burning phase? Or do carbon stars fall under this?

There are supernovas we observe, sure, but do we know when we look at the very last stages before it? Can we detect the 600-or-less-years phases?

1

r2k-in-the-vortex t1_j2dqcdl wrote

All the usual stuff you see in old age, cardiovascular problems, lung capacity, neurological problems, lifetime of being sick over and over again makes it all worse down the line. It accumulates same as mundane injuries, health damaging work environment and all that.

2

BluScr33n t1_j2doxc7 wrote

No, Earth is way more massive than Mars and won't lose its atmosphere as easily. The upper layer of the atmosphere is ionized by solar radiation. Instead of simply stripping our atmosphere away, the solar wind would induce a magnetic field in this upper ionosphere. And this induced magnetic field would exactly cancel the magnetic field from the solar wind, ultimately deflecting the solar wind around Earth. This is exactly what happened on Venus and is one of the reasons why Venus still has an atmosphere.

The same thing also happens on Mars, but because Mars is significantly less massive it still lost most of its atmosphere over time from various processes.

But you are correct with your idea that Earth would lose its intrinsic magnetic field if the core cooled down and solidified.

1

adam12349 t1_j2domty wrote

One of the important things about these scattering experiments is the thickness of your target object. If the target is thin the interaction can be treated as individual scatterings on the atoms of your target object. If the object is thick the interaction at the front of the object effect the interaction at the back, so your scattering is no longer the sum of individual scatterings.

Knowing the crossection of the experiment you can calculate a distance that the particles of the oncoming beam can freely travel in your target. Which means that a collision isn't guaranteed. A thin target would let a lot of the particles through without interaction but some of them would end up colliding and those can be treated as independent collisions. If the target is thicker than that distance almost all particles of the beam would collide statistically even those that scattered at the front of the object scattering again in the target.

So you want your target to be as thin as possible and gold foil can be really thin like a few atoms thin. Which is perfect for scattering experiments but of course there are other options too.

48

CrustalTrudger t1_j2dku87 wrote

You are incorrect, halosteric (i.e., change in sea level due to salinity related changes in density) sea level change is definitely a thing. It's a smaller component than thermosteric changes, e.g. Durack et al., 2014 estimate the magnitude of halosteric changes to be 1/4 of the magnitude of thermosteric changes, but still significant.

3