The list over at wikipedia is much better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
Since it`s a bit misleading. Salty water boils slower since a higher temperature is needed. Also if you boil pasta you should get the water to ~sea water saltieness Edit: It seems I was quite wrong (about the saltieness not the boiling point). The upper tollarable limit seems to be aroud ~2 % salt while the sea has around 3.5 % salt.
Something that always confused me, as the water seems to react with bubbles when I throw salt into it. My theory is that little amount of energy gets released when the ion grid structure is broken up, but still boiling point is higher for salted water. Could absolutely be bullshit... maybe someone can explain?
Edit: Thank you all guys for taking the time to explain!
It's likely nucleation. Basically, the water wants to boil, however it can quite get over the hump to produce a gas bubble. When you add salt, the surface acts as a nucleation point. Once the bubble forms, it grows rapidly, often splitting and forming more.
You see this effect at the other end too. Supercooled water will remain liquid, until something becomes available to crystallise around. When this happens, the whole lot will freeze in seconds.
It's just adding a bunch of extra surface area so the bubbles form on it. Like mentos and coke. https://youtu.be/QW7r2RHt6tY
More water vapor made when you throw in salt when it's actively boiling? Likely a physical reaction rather than a change to boiling point. The surface of the salt is rough, creating more surface area for the molecules to turn into their gaseous form.
Similar to mentos and diet coke, gases suspended in liquid can be released more efficiently with rough surfaces.
The part about evolution being a theory is wrong.
The term they describe is a hypothesis. A theory is actually the highest level of understanding we have to.
We have basic data. Then we have Laws, which describe how that data behaves. Finally we have Theories, that describe WHY the data behaves like that.
Conversely a hypothesis is an idea to be tested. First by logic, then by experimentation. Hypotheses produce data, Theories explain and predict data.
Einstein didn't excel in maths. He was a physicist. He knew maths to do physics, but he wasn't mathematician. He also had his calculus checked by someone else, because that's what any reasonable researcher does. And when you work with people like Dirac, Shrodinger, Heisenberg or Feinman, you really feel like you're bad at maths. You'd probably feel like an idiot too if you didn't already have a Nobel prize.
@atheist
It's not just the insufficient velocity that makes the penny non-lethal. It's the combination of the velocity together with its low mass. A 30 to 50 mph fast and 10 lb heavy penny could definitely kill you.Humans and dinosaurs do coexist right now, today: birds are (technically) dinosaurs.
Birds are decendants of dinosaurs but saying that birds are dinosurs makes Aa much sense as saying humans are fish Dinosaurs are a defined group of reptiles
Left brain right brain.... Language? Surely as black and white as it gets.
Ditto the sugar /ADHD thing, that's in heavy research and is more about sugar -> inflammation -> neurological changes -> ADHD symptoms.
The wording is really specific and frankly misleading though technically true in what it seems to be claiming.
It is technically possible for brains that had something go wrong to develop language competency in the right hemisphere's real estate as long as the person was young enough.
But it is absolutely wrong in portraying this as if the two hemispheres aren't functionally different in practice (even if not in potential).
Think the left/right sentiment is more about that this is just the way things usually settle, not the way they have to be. You can have aphasia in non-dominant hemisphere strokes, aphasia is also not necessarily permanent in strokes. Recently I was linked a nature article where they rewired newborn ferret visual and audio nerves, they showed that the
visual cortex was able to pick up and process audio input and vice versa.audio cortex was able to process visual input.Sugar causes inflammation? I mean I know it's not healthy, but...
Yeah, lots of ROS and inflammation from excess sugar, especially when ingested without fibre.
Doesn't it seem that in context, jihad can still mean holy war? It seems the vast majority of jihadists are religious fanatics.
Do Muslims refer to difficult homework as a jihad? Do Muslims refer to living in poverty as a jihad? I've only ever seen it used in connection with a holy war, but I'm not Muslim so maybe I'm just fed propaganda and I'm ignorant of the true use.
The banana statment is complete nonsense. Herb nor Tree has any scientific meaning. The whole sheet is a bunch of petty pedantic gotcha at best and just wrong at worst.
What are you talking about? The literal difference between a herb and a tree is the presence of wood. This isn't referring to the culinary term for herb, it's referring to the short version of the botanical term "herbaceous", which are plants that aren't lignified, aka they don't have a woody stem like trees or shrubs do. The terms absolutely do have scientific meaning. Banana plants do not have woody stems, hence they are herbs, aka herbaceous plants. In general terms we call them trees, but in a botanical sense they aren't the same thing.
I would say the pasta one is debatable. The starch in the pasta is supposed to make the sauce thicker and thus more sticky. This won't happen when the starch is trapped in oil.
Maybe not all dairy, but I definitely turn into a phlegmmy boogie goblin after eating larger amounts of some dairy foods.
I shall continue to tread carefully, even if science is on my side!
The Coriolis one is generally true, but it's been proven to have an effect on draining water in highly controlled environments using water that has been allowed to settle for at least 18 hours.
Ehm you made a mistake. You wrote "The Three Wise Men" instat of "God". And the description of him doesn't fit too.
Glass is absolutely an amorphous solid, and over time glass windows will start to deform. You can see it in some of the older buildings in Europe that are hundreds of years old.
That's not true, those old windows have always been deformed in that way because people back then weren't good at making glass, but their shake hasn't changed.
And they are usually thicker at the bottom because people were smart enough to realize there's less risk of breakage if the weight doesn't rest on the thinner end.
But there are some cases were the thicker part is up.
Glass is absolutely an amorphous solid
It is an amorphous solid instead of a liquid, like the picture claims.
over time glass windows will start to deform
No, see the other comment.
The chimps evolution one is really a matter of semantics, yeah?. Evolving from a shared ancestry is a different way of saying the same thing?
... No it isn't? It's the same as the difference between saying your sister gave birth to you and saying your mother gave birth to you and your sister. The species humans and chimps evolved from was neither a human nor a chimpanzee.
