Hello community, there's something I've been wondering about! This thought occured to me when thinking about the changes in the maternal immune system during pregnancy.

Is there a possibility of the development of a neoplasia in the fetus which transfers itself to the mother, i.e. a placentar metastasis? There are, even if rare, cases of tumor development in utero as well as cases of placentar metastasis where the neoplasia gets transferred from the mother to the fetus. However I can't find anything on a case where it is vice versa. I've been thinking about why this might not be possible, e.g. the placentar circulation (however there is a blood flow from the fetus via umbilical vein) or that the fetal DNA repair system is simply that flawless that neoplasia is almost impossible? On the other hand, the maternal immune system, so also the CD8+ Tcells, is weakened during pregnancy.

I apologize if this has already been discussed elsewhere or if I'm overlooking sth obvious. Thankful for some answers!

I am in 10th grade, and I aspire to become an astrophysicist in the future. I have a deep love for the universe and a strong desire to uncover its secrets—questions like what existed before the Big Bang, who or what created the universe, the nature of dark matter and dark energy, and what lies inside a black hole.

The way I see science is fascinating. Scientists dedicate their entire lives to studying a single topic, yet I have the opportunity to learn about their discoveries in a fraction of that time. This truly highlights the vastness of scientific knowledge. Take, for example, the study of the Sun or DNA—many researchers have spent their entire careers on these subjects, yet we can grasp their work in detail within just a few years. That realization motivates me to explore thousands of years of scientific and human development.

This is why I want to become a scientist—specifically, an astrophysicist. I would love to know more about the scope and future of this field. What should be the right pathway to achieve this goal? If anyone working in fields like cosmology or astrophysics can share insights, I would greatly appreciate it.

I've always been a big fanatic of science in general. I always had an interest in various sciences (psychology, chemistry, forensics and forensic psych, physics, (I guess also engineering but I don't know if that is a "sience"), etc. But I've never took the time to learn and understand them, I would like to do that now even if it's with the basics like physics bio and chem. I just don't know how.

This has been weirdly hard to find answers for via search engine, but my hypothesis is that the snow is from a cold front laterally colliding with a humid warm front, causing quick condensation and freezing, which results in snow. Then the cold front starts moving underneath the warm front, condensing the warm air without cooling it as much, causing it to rain. The rain doesn't have time to freeze as it drops, and even when it does it just results in freezing rain.

There is a lot about this in the news. But not many scientists are talking about it yet. Can anyone here help explain what it going on, an dhow bad it is for scientific work?

I’m a reporter in the climate beat and am looking for textbook recommendations to learn as much climate science as I can.

There are "carbon cubes" for sale, coming in sizes of 1 cm, 1 inch, 5 cm. In this case, graphite ✏️ is used.

But let's imagine a 1 cm carbon (diamond 💎) cube. It's still carbon, and the cube should be like glass, but playing with light differently.

Artificial diamonds, from what i see, are still not that big, so would it even be possible to craft such a cube, with current technology?

(I know it would be expensive as hell, I would rather use that money to buy either a big 💎 or a lot of small 💎's, not a glass-like cube)

Trying to wrap my head around how to treat that motion, the upward path and arc before the object again falls. Should be inertial as soon as it departs from the catapult (same as from a slingshot aiming upward), but the object isn't yet in freefall.

One potential way to resolve that might be to treat the object like it's in 'negative' freefall on its way up, then in positive freefall in its way down from gravity, and add the two values.

Would that be right? How would that work?

I'm working on a fantasy story where a magical drought comes to a tropical rainforest valley.

What would happen in a sharp drought? (say no rainfall for 1 months? 3 months?)

Do the trees have reserves of water? Do they lose leaves quickly? If the canopy thins out or goes, how does that affect other life?

What role does rain/water play in mitigating the heat? Is there much fire risk?

Is the soil affected by erosion or other forces?

If there's a river fed from outside places with rain does that change anything in the drought valley?

I'm looking for a detailed resource that gives you a guide on crops and all of their potential problems and how to solve those problems. For example:

• Sage
  • Powdery mildew
    • Causes
    • Diagnostics
    • Treatment
  • Yellow (at bottom)
    • Causes
    • Diagnostics
    • Treatment

I'm used to this format from medical textbooks detailing pathology (in humans, however I assume the format of Causes, Diagnostics, Treatment must apply here as well). I'd also prefer the source to be academic/professional. For example, I prefer reading "This is how we determine if chlorosis is the result of poor soil pH or stomatal closure" vs "overwatering causes plant stress which may yellow leaves".

I wonder if the Aral Sea could be reborn in such a scenario and if so, how many years it would take.

I'm a high school student and I aim to pursue biotechnology due to my lifelong fascination with botany and science sensu lato. My mother, however, is very disapproving and firmly believes that I will not earn enough money for my life unless I incorporate/switch to entrepreneurship (which I hate. I hate the people and the weird atmosphere surrounding it).
I live in a relatively small Asian country (Vietnam) and plan to study abroad (US/Europe/Japan) (I have prepared for uni applications, though I haven't applied yet). The field is basically nonexistent in Vietnam and I will not be able to survive at all as a researcher unless I work for a foreign company/overseas.
Should I keep following being a scientist or should I reconsider my options? What should I do to prepare? What should I expect?

I’ve long asked this question and have yet to been given an answer directly to this. I know that mosquitoes don’t have T-cells, they don’t inject blood into their next victim, they digest the virus in their stomachs. All that jazz. The question that continuously gets escaped is below:

If I am standing directly beside of an HIV positive person and a mosquito bites them and begins to feed on their blood, then the mosquito gets swatted away and it flies directly over to me and begins to bite me. Only a few seconds have passed between the two bites. Why doesn’t residual blood on the mosquitoes feeding apparatus (which is built like a needle with 6 stylets) become a huge problem when it begins the new bite? It’s needle-like mouth, soaked in HIV positive blood, just punctured my skin. Science says absolutely zero chance of infection. Why?

I’m a reporter in the climate beat. I don’t have a formal education in any of the sciences, only a BSJ in journalism and a certificate in environmental science.

I’ve seen reporters straight up getting the science they’re reporting on wrong and thus spreading misinformation. I like to think I’m doing a good job of accurately reporting on climate science, ecology, etc. but I know I’m not immune to pitfalls.

What advice would you give to reporters in a science beat?

I am a Mechanical Engineering major this is my second year of study. I have completed Physics 1, Chemistry 1, and 2 and am currently in Calculus 2, dynamics, and other electives. In Physics 1, Chem 1/2 I got 80s and I would like to iron out and improve before I transfer so I would like to know what books you all used to learn and master these subjects.

This is a link to course requirements etc in case you are wondering what type of classes I took/need to take:

https://perimeter.gsu.edu/rep/

If we take a piece of seaweed or wood down to the bottom of the Marianna trench and release it, will it stay sunk, or does it rise up to the surface?

USGS says it found huge deposits of hydrogen (6.2 trillion tons: US hydrogen jackpot). It sounds good but I’m curious about side effects if we used it for energy on a large scale. The oxygen would have to come from somewhere, and the water vapor would have to go somewhere… would we just be trading one set of problems for another?

Light is slower in air and amounts of air can be estimated. Amounts of moisture, droplets, aerosols and ions change more and are harder to estimate. By the way, measuring those between 2 points with known distance may work well?

Imagine a lighthouse or tall tower hazard light that flashes 10000 times per second and to eye looks constant yellow or purple. Maybe the start or end of a pulse need to be measured with nanosecond precision and even then the result is quite inaccurate, but useful for something? This is unidirectional measurement as opposed to radar which is bidirectional and has some advantages if it works.

When I google it it seems like the same website contradicts itself, so does a higher density within your bones as a result of an LRP5 mutation cause stronger or weaker bones?

Say we have a long straight wire carrying a strong DC current. A ring made out of Type II superconducting material is centered around the wire axis. Due to the magnetic field around the wire, I suspect that flux pinning will try to keep the ring centered about the wire (is that part correct?)

Would the ring still be able to slide along the wire axis, or would flux pinning try to force the ring to be stationary with respect to the wire? On the one hand, the magnetic field is consistent around the long (effectively infinite) wire, so from the perspective of the ring the magnetic field doesn't really change as it slides along the wire axis. On the other hand, since the magnetic field is azimuthal around the wire, and the ring is sliding *along* the wire, the ring is still cutting through different lines of magnetic flux as it moves.

I understand ftl travel is currently impossible as per the laws of physics.

What's the closest to faster than light travel we can theoretically achieve and what are the barriers to that at present?

I know that based on Gravitational Time Dilation that objects that are close or at the event horizon of a black hole “appears” to be frozen from an outside observer at a distance, because once crossing it they disappear into it.

But I was wondering, with that concept, is it limited to only the objects that fall towards a black hole, or do or would black holes themselves appear to be frozen in time as well due to time dilation When viewed by an observer at a distance?

Example, would Accretion Disks appear to be frozen in close proximity to a Black Hole when observed from a distance?

https://www.quora.com/How-do-black-holes-appear-to-spin-when-time-is-virtually-frozen-around-them

Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 mil years away less than 1 megapersec and getting closer at some speed. Is it true to say as it gets closer it accelerates not only due to gravity between Milky Way but also space between get closer so the space expansion rate of 74km per sec per megaparsec is much less.

From what I could read it’s very important for visual-spatial processing and the like. Did they have better eyesight? Better hand eye coordination?

How would we maybe perceive the world differently if our occipital lobes started to grow more to match that of a Cro-Magnon?

This is sort of a general question across scientific fields because I wanted to get more perspective as a Psych major. I find a lot of basic things in the experiment poorly executed. For example, it had a sample size of 1 and the subject had so many variables (not least of which the entire experiment being a crash diet) that would affect the final outcome regardless of what he did.

It led me to wonder what I would change in the experiment to make it feel more legitimate. My main one is, if the experiment must retain its sample size of 1, to have the subject have a diet and activity level prior to starting more indicative of the diet and activity level more in line with that of an average white American male.

So I'm curious what changes do you all believe could/should be made for it to be considered a good and proper experiment?

So I've heard that the manufacture of plastic releases a lot of CO2. Does anyone know if there is still a lot of CO2 produced if the process is fully electrified with electricity from renewable sources? Thanks

Are there any concrete examples of this?

The winds seem to be such a big influence of the spread of the wildfires.

I’m wondering if this is like a vicious cycle. Like as the fire rages, it heats the air creating high pressure and thus the air is moving towards lower temp areas increasing the spread of wildfires.

I know the formula is PV=nRT but I was wondering how to analyze the scenario with volume.

Thanks