Q1 Mr Gopalakrishnan is a scientist who has conducted his own research to find out there is no oxygen and yet fire is produced. There is a , rather there was a thinking from one crude section, assuming only Hydrogen is more and Oxygen is less and so space is void of oxygen. However the real science world did not lead any theory like that since, rackets sent with the fuel, were burning in space and did not get switched off. Even if there is enough fuel, the philosophy of burning holds good in space, uninterruptedly and never gets switched off. Of everything, space is not a blank vacuum. Hydrogen turned helium can burn. There are substances other than earth elements that know which friction in space burns. Then space is a mystery; what is known here to us need not be true is planets and space; there may be elements of combustion. Rigvedam opens the nature and its behaviour apart from puranas where descriptions of space are given long ago. So asking such a silly question as to burn where is oxygen in space etc is ambiguous and could have been stated in complete science knowhow. Half baked quora is always dangerous Now recent NASA: "Oxygen No Longer Lost in Space
Astronomers have at last identified the distinct signatures of oxygen molecules in space, using observations made with the Herschel Space Observatory, a European Space Agency mission with important NASA contributions. The rarity of cosmic oxygen molecules -- the same molecules making up part of the air we breathe on Earth -- is still a mystery, but the new observations provide clues about why they had gone missing. Herschel found the molecules in a dense patch of gas and dust adjacent to star-forming regions in the Orion nebula. Astronomers suspect that newborn stars heated nearby icy grains, releasing water, which was then converted to oxygen. In other parts of clouds, where oxygen molecules are not detected, the oxygen may be locked up in the icy grains. The inset is an artist's concept of a collection of oxygen molecules, where two connected balls represent two oxygen atoms bound together as an oxygen molecule. The image of the Orion nebula was taken in infrared light by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. [credit: ESA/NASA/JPL-Caltech]." xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Q3 ,Q4 & Q7 The Q and A is rubbish. The Big Bang and origin of life is a broad subject well founded today . And 4 lines is a waste of subject. Space is highly expansive and alterable and needs specific perception. Q6 Suns are also too many NB Better to study in depth and write. That is better. Vedas and space and many unknown elements 99.99% are not gossip topics. KR IRS 17 8 23 On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 20:27, 'gopala krishnan' via iyer123 < [email protected]> wrote: > *CULTURAL QA 08-2023-17A* > > Q1 If fire needs oxygen, where does the sun get oxygen if there's > no oxygen in space? > > A1 Ala, Studied Science & Health at University of Sheffield > (Graduated 2019)Wed > > Even though it might seem counterintuitive, the Sun doesn't actually need > oxygen to burn like a fire does. > > *The Sun's energy comes from a process called nuclear fusion, which takes > place in its core. In this process, hydrogen atoms fuse together to form > helium, releasing an enormous amount of energy in the form of light and > heat*. This happens at incredibly high temperatures and pressures that > exist deep within the Sun. Unlike a fire on Earth that relies on the > combustion of material with oxygen, the Sun's fusion process involves the > intense pressure and temperature of its core, and it doesn't require any > external oxygen source. > > As for the lack of oxygen in space, *you're right that the vacuum of > space is practically devoid of oxygen *and other gases that we're > familiar with on Earth. Space is essentially a near-perfect vacuum, with > only very sparse traces of matter spread out over vast distances. The Sun > doesn't need to "breathe" in oxygen from space because it's not relying on > combustion for its energy production. Instead, it's all about the > incredible forces at play within its core, where extreme heat and > pressure allow those hydrogen atoms to come together and release energy in > the form of light and heat. So, no need for oxygen in space for the Sun > to shine. > > Q2 What is the difference between hard water and soft water? > > A2 Ananda Jogi,Sun > > *The terms "hard water" and "soft water" refer to the mineral content > present in water, specifically the concentration of calcium and magnesium > ions.* The main difference between hard water and soft water lies in > their mineral content and the effects they can have: > > Hard Water: > > Hard water contains a relatively high concentration of dissolved minerals, > primarily calcium and magnesium ions. > > *These minerals are commonly found in groundwater as water passes through > limestone, chalk, or other mineral-rich geological formations.* > > When hard water is heated, it can lead to the formation of mineral > deposits, or "scale," on pipes, appliances, and surfaces. This scale can > reduce the efficiency of water heaters and other equipment. > > *Soap and detergents do not lather as effectively in hard water*, leading > to the need for larger amounts of cleaning agents to achieve the same > results. > > My note- So Chandrika soap contains the cleaning agents in large scale. > Chandrika became famous in Chennai and Tamilnadu, because it produced more > lather while using during bathing. > > Hard water can cause issues with plumbing and appliances over time due to > mineral buildup. > > > > Soft Water: > > Soft water has a low concentration of calcium and magnesium ions. > > It is typically found in areas with less mineral-rich geological > formations or where water has been treated to remove minerals. > > Soft water does not lead to the formation of scale when heated, which can > improve the efficiency and lifespan of water heaters and appliances. > > Soap and detergents lather more readily in soft water, requiring smaller > amounts for effective cleaning. > > *Soft water is generally considered more gentle on plumbing systems and > appliances.* > > In summary, the primary difference between hard water and soft water is > the mineral content, specifically the concentration of calcium and > magnesium ions. The presence of these minerals in hard water can lead to > scale build up and affect the performance of plumbing, appliances, and > cleaning products. Soft water, on the other hand, is less likely to cause > scale and can provide benefits in terms of cleaning efficiency and > equipment longevity. > > My note-In Chennai many tried to soften hard water in the water tank, *most > gave up due to the huge expenditure involved, mainly large quantity of salt > 5-6 bags in every quarter. * > > Q3 How can the "big bang" origin of the universe be scientific, > when science already proved life can not come from non-life in the 1800s? > > A3 Claire Jordan, Degree in biology and folklore; programmer, > shop owner, secretary on newspaper Sun > > 164 years ago, Pasteur demonstrated that *complex* life did not come from > non-life under the specific circumstances of a single experiment. It may > have escaped your attention that this has nothing to do with the origin > of the first, very simple life; that was *164 years ago* and *science > advances with every week that passes; and that this has precisely zero to > do with the origin of the cosmos itself.* > > Q4 How far away from the Earth must an object be to stay on > the same spot above the Earth, like say above the US? > > A4 John McMahon,Studied at School of Hard Knocks Sun > > *About 900,000 miles out towards the Sun*. This is the area known as the L1 > LaGrange point. *It's a point in space where the Earth is pulling just as > hard as the sun is*. > > It's an unstable LaGrange point so you can't park things there for very > long but we do have things parked there like the Halo solar Observatory. > *Anything > parked in the L1 needs to have thrusters on it to keep it right at The > Sweet Spot because it's an unstable LaGrange Point unlike the others*. L4 > and L5 are so stable that things get stuck there. > > Q5 What if a human fell in a pool filled with mercury? > > A5 Loring Chien, Former Principal Engineer at Fortune 1000 > Company (2002–2016)Aug 8 > > Mercury is dense, very dense and liquid at room temperatures. > > It has a density more than 13 times that of water. A block of steel > floats on mercury. > > Not just floats 50% submerged like a piece of wood in water, but about 50% > above the mercury. > > A human whose density is about the same as water will barely have any > parts under the surface. > > But its too soft to get up and walk. I imagine you could doggie paddle > easily or float on your back to a place you can climb out. > > You can’t swim or even tread vertically, or tiptoe on the bottom. *your > body would pop up and be top heavy and fall over.* > > Of course mercury is very toxic - you want to get out ASAP and limit > contact and don’t for gods sake swallow any. > > My note-I read elsewhere mercury is so scarce and a pool of mercury is > imaginable- > > Q6 How many moons are there in all the planets? > > A6 Salwa Salah,Aug 8 > > There are a total of 219 known moons in our solar system. Here is a > breakdown of the number of moons each planet has: > > 1. Mercury: 0 moons > > 2. Venus: 0 moons > > 3. Earth: 1 moon (named "Moon") > > 4. Mars: 2 moons (Phobos and Deimos) > > 5. Jupiter: 79 moons (including four large moons: Io, Europa, Ganymede, > and Callisto) > > 6. Saturn: 82 moons (including the famous Titan and Enceladus) > > 7. Uranus: 27 moons (including Titania, Oberon, Umbriel, Ariel, and > Miranda) > > 8. Neptune: 14 moons (including Triton and Nereid) > > 9. Pluto: 5 moons (including Charon, Styx, Nix, Kerberos, and Hydra) > > It's important to note that the number of moons can change over time as > new discoveries are made, and it's possible that more moons may be > discovered in the future. > > Q7 Why is the Big Bang the most accepted theory if there was > nothing before it to cause the explosion? > > A7 Carlos A, Former student in Astrophysics, Universidad Técnica > Federico Santa María Wed > > *There are many interpretations/possible explanations:* > > The universe had existed before the Big Bang, although in a somehow > different state, and probably, different laws of physics. Some phenomenon > caused it to collapse and then cause the Big Bang. > > The multiverse in some form may be real. New universes then can come from > already existing ones, or by other mechanisms. > > There is no cause. > > To be a cause, you have to be a past event prior to another one closely > related. Since time itself didn’t exist before the Big Bang, there is, by > definition, no cause. Similar to how there isn’t any point more towards > the north than the north pole. > > *All the above QA are from Quora digest to me on 17-08- 2023.* > > *Quora answers need not be 100% correct answers .* > > *Compiled **and posted by R. Gopala krishnan, on 17-08-2023* > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "iyer123" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/1659515100.856617.1692284223773%40mail.yahoo.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/1659515100.856617.1692284223773%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoqxpnWSNQWofTvNEq1B08nxZbCnemZwo1%2B86Nhr-ta3Zw%40mail.gmail.com.
